Technology

59374 readers

7261 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

175

Bleeding subscribers, cable companies force their way into streaming | Companies like Comcast and Charter brought about the streaming industry they now want to join (arstechnica.com)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The cable industry has been in a nose-dive for years. Comcast's Q1 2024 earnings report showed its cable business losing 487,000 subscribers. The cable giant ended 2022 with 16,142,000 subscribers; in January, it had 13,600,000.

Charter, the only US cable company bigger than Comcast, is rapidly losing pay-TV subscribers, too. In its Q1 2024 earnings report, Charter reported losing 405,000 subscribers, including business accounts. It ended 2022 with 15,147,000 subscribers; at the end of March, it had 13,717,000.

And, like Comcast, Charter is looking to streaming bundles to keep its pay-TV business alive and to compete with the likes of YouTube TV and Hulu With Live TV.

It’s a curious time as cable TV providers scramble to be part of an industry created in reaction to business practices that many customers viewed as anti-consumer. Meanwhile, the streaming industry is adopting some of these same practices, like commercials and incessant price hikes, to establish profitability. And some smaller streaming players say it's nearly impossible to compete as the streaming industry's top players are taking form and, in some cases, collaborating.

But after decades of discouraging many subscribers with few alternatives, it will be hard for former or current cable customers to view firms like Comcast and Charter as trustworthy competitive streaming providers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 44 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The problem I have always had with cable TV, and now with streaming, is the advertisements. I understand why free services inject ads into their video stream; they have to make a profit somehow. I don't like it, and I'll block the ads, but I understand it.

Having experience what ad-free entertainment is like, be it from Netflix years ago, renting movies online, or Youtube with Adblock, I will never pay for a service that's going to show me ads. Either make the service free and cash in on ad revenue or sell the service for an appropriate price that you can afford not to show ads. Sticking to the old model of "pay for cable TV and watch commercials" is never going to work, be it cable or streaming. I don't think I'm in the minority here, either; I've heard this sentiment from plenty of others.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Sticking to the old model of “pay for cable TV and watch commercials” is never going to work, be it cable or streaming. I don’t think I’m in the minority here, either; I’ve heard this sentiment from plenty of others.

As much as wish I could agree with you, the previous ad-free streaming services now almost all offering an ad-supported tier disagrees with your conclusion. Price conscious consumers are choosing ad-supported subscriptions in large enough numbers for streaming services to offer them profitably. I'm okay with this. Not everyone has the money that I do, but I'll almost always choose the ad-free version of a streaming channel instead of the ad-supported.

One of the few exceptions to that is Hulu. I don't watch enough on Hulu to make it worth $18/month, and the ad-supported version can be had for $1/month-$2/month.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago

It's certainly possible (and probably even likely) that you're correct. Most of the people I've spoken to about that are somewhat tech-inclined and probably much more likely to be using an adblocker than the average person.

So many years of ad-free media has just ruined me on ad-supported content. I sat down in front of a public TV tuned to a cable channel the other day, and it was absolutely unwatchable.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I can't subscribe to anything because I don't trust them to not try to stuff ads down my throat in a few months.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Its a monthly subscription, and if they sell you a no-ad product you'd have strong grounds to ask for a refund for that month. Otherwise simply cancel the month you see ads.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Thats a lot more work than a torrent.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

If you're torrenting, then there's no risk of watching ads from what you download, which was your primary argument for not subbing. If that's the case then there's no risk to subscribing to the service to pay for the content, and simply never log in.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

For nostalgia's sake I watched a YouTube video of [adult swim] complete with original commercials and bumpers. Even though I specifically requested commercials they were pretty terrible and I ended up skipping them anyway.