Yeah, same here. It turns out that data-driven, 'viral-focused'[1] TV content is just not enough to justify a price increase over the media giants that have huge back catalogs to depend on. They are a content company trying to behave like a tech company.
[1] Drive to Survive is a good example of this - once a year bait to get people back. I imagine there are similar single-show subscribers in other genres that cancel immediately after.
>They are a content company trying to behave like a tech company.
I'd say that it originally was reversed. With the advent of streaming, they saw the writing on the wall that all studios would prefer to have their content on their own platform. Like, duh! So in order to combat the loss of that back catalog content, they had to become a content company. They just can't compete as well now that everyone has their own platform that needs content.
They are sure giving it their best shot by cancelling shows people love and removing features that differentiate them.
It's a risk. You green light something that sounds like it could do well only for it to totally bomb. You cancel and cut your losses when it's not an obvious winner. It's a bummer for those slow burn type of shows that get better in season 2+, but bean counters don't consider that. Then again, writers need to know this going in and not make them such a slow burn unless there's guarantee of enough time. I don't envy, but I am finding I watch less and less of their content.
I did not share my password and Generally only watched on one screen. I'm sure they can tell. But they just kept jacking the prices up while lots of content went to other streaming services. The Balkanization of TV content.