I rather like that for $14/month I get access to more video that I can watch in my remaining free time.
This article is asserting that enough people don't find that to be the case that it's become a problem. I think they're on to something.
Unpopular opinion: all entertainment does not have to be free, or approaching free. I'm able to buy access to thousands of hours of quality video entertainment for what just a few years ago was the cost of a single audio CD. It is annoying when you have to buy the whole subscription to watch a single show, though.
Torrentors aside, most people expect to pay for content.
They'd just prefer it be convenient and to pay for only the content they want, which...
>annoying when you have to buy the whole subscription to watch a single show, though.
...is pretty much what you're saying here.
No one wants 89 streaming subscription services to watch one show on each.
The proliferation of streaming services is too much to manage and inconvenient, nearly to the point of customer-hostile. And with each content creator wanting its own platform (Disney, Paramount, etc.) it's getting worse.
You'd think the number of choices would be freeing, but bundling is still alive and well, with only the illusion of its demise. That is, many platforms pull you in with one or two original movies or serials of interest, dragging along with it a multitude of uninteresting content most don't consume and would rather not pay for.
Of course, the big cable/satellite services have traditionally provided the aggregation, but their extreme bundling practices are heinous. There needs to be a service that aggregates all on one platform, but also provides the ability to create your own "bundles", perhaps even a pay per view option: subscribe to only the shows or serials that interest you.