The article is just two months old, but already outdated! HBO has discontinued HBO Go and renamed HBO Now.

https://www.hbo.com/hbo-news/hbo-max-hbo-go-hbo-now-differen...

I wish I could find that viral image passed around for decades demanding the ideal à la carte cable tv - just want a handful of good channels not 1000 channels of crap.

I guess we got what we wanted but not quite the way we expected.

People want high quality content that takes risks, but don’t want to pay for it.

I find it a lot cheaper to just pay the $2 to $20 to rent/buy the media from the various vendors since I consume so little of it.

The situation is vastly improved from my childhood when you had to deal with one company having control of delivering all the media into your home, and it was on a schedule you couldn’t control and with ads.

Now I just tap a few buttons and it’s on.

$2 to $20 sounds reasonable. But the trend now is to have 20 services with different content, each costing $2 to $20. Will you subscribe to them all?

It means $2 - 20 per title.

Streaming services are a bargain compared to that.

Netflix really did give everyone daft pricing expectations while it burnt venture capital to price itself artificially cheaply.

I didn't watch Netflix last month and I was still charged for it. Streaming services are only a bargain if you watch a lot of TV. If you watch <5hours/month/service than the value proposition begins to become questionable.

No, I won’t. But people who find value in it can, and it’s still leaps better than the previous normal of not being able to watch anything at anytime, anywhere.

Efforts to complain about monopolies and price would be better directed at reducing copyright durations.

Still waiting for a streaming provider to pick up on the basic music streaming concepts of favorites, playlists, and shuffle play.

What is a tv channel if not a shuffled playlist of shows and movies with ads intermixed?

Netflix is experimenting with shuffle:

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/08/18/netflix-is-testing...

That would work... if one channel would cost 10 cents/month.

However the movie industry would rather have you pay $20 per month for it.

Processing the payment costs 30 cents. How the heck would such a service not operate at a loss?

If only there were organizations that would charge a fee once a month for all content providers on their delivery service and distribute to companies providing content a share of what they charged based on the number of customers...

I'm sure large volume sellers don't pay 30 cents per transaction.

Also, if you think a bit no one's going to order just one channel. You could also charge for a year in advance if it's that cheap.

Why do you care about Hollywood's profits anyway?