Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghaff | Hacker News Reader

With TV, I suspect we're seeing inertia or path dependence starting to break down in large numbers.

A lot of people did/do watch TV linearly out of habit. Plop themselves down on the couch and watch.

Would they have started doing that if they had a lot of other options? Maybe in some cases. (Don't underestimate the desire of some people to have something on in the background.) But probably a lot fewer.

Something similar applies to a cable bundle. I lot of people have it. It's probably the easiest way to watch live sports. It may also be bundled in with other services they use. Etc. Canceling probably means changing some habits and losing access to at least some content. But they wouldn't necessarily have called up Comcast or DirecTV and initiated a subscription if they didn't already have one.

View on HN

> A lot of people did/do watch TV linearly out of habit. Plop themselves down on the couch and watch.

I'm in this category. I've got a bunch of streaming subscriptions yet I usually end up channel surfing regular TV.

Maybe it's a generational thing. Maybe it's laziness (i.e. let them decide what I watch, I don't want to pick). Maybe it's the convenience of the interface (it just works, no connecting, changing channels is near instant, etc). Maybe a combo of all of those.

>Maybe it's a generational thing. Maybe it's laziness (i.e. let them decide what I watch, I don't want to pick). Maybe it's the convenience of the interface (it just works, no connecting, changing channels is near instant, etc). Maybe a combo of all of those.

That's all likely true to some degree. Personally, I've probably become more and more a very intentional (and occasional) TV watcher and I've never been one to flip the TV on in, say, a hotel room for background when I walk in the door. I still have a cable bundle but I rarely use it.

I've never found value in TV (cable or otherwise) because it seems to be mostly ads these days, but I do a very similar thing in the car. I subscribe to SiriusXM radio (because most channels are commercial-free while FM radio around me is loaded with more ads than music). I have a music streaming service and music on my phone I can pick from, but more often than not I don't want to pick my music. Especially while I'm driving. So I turn on a station I like and can listen ad-free. And if I flip to another station, it's highly likely I'm flipping to another song being played, not to another ad being played like FM radio or TV.

If cable TV could be commercial-free like satellite radio, I might be a subscriber. It's the same reason I cancelled my NYT.com subscription: I don't like paying for the privilege of watching advertisements. If I'm paying you money, I'd better get an ad-free experience. If my monthly fee doesn't cover the cost of replacing ads, then you're not charging me enough.

Maybe Netflix should set up channels where they just play shows back to back like cable TV does.

>Maybe Netflix should set up channels where they just play shows back to back like cable TV does.

Someone brought this up a few weeks ago but it's not really a good fit with Netflix' cost model. They really don't want to be paying content providers for an always on background stream when no one may even be watching. Of course, Spotify does but I suspect the numbers are a lot different. Perhaps there's enough really cheap content they could do this with.

That's a good point, but if it was limited to just Netflix's own content (depending on how they own/license their own content), it shouldn't be too much additional cost, right? Basically the cost of the bandwidth, but maybe lower the stream quality on their channel.

Yeah, if they had royalty free content. Though most of what's in their catalog doesn't really qualify as "play in the background" sort of stuff which was what was being discussed upthread.

The general concept would probably be interesting for a lot of people if the numbers worked.

Yes what I really want is something like Pluto TV but with a better content selection.

Netflix doesn't pay per stream. They pay a one time cost to stream content. Spotify does pay per stream, but they don't pay more in aggregate based on how much people stream - at least from subscriptions. If 10 users pay $10 a month, there is a pool of around 70% - $70 that is split between all of the music that those 10 people listen to.

One problem I found is that streaming services have too much mental overhead. It sounds funny, but look at Netflix original content; Most of the story writing is "too good" and too dark (like most of their content seems to be about murderers or spooky stuff or substance abuse). I have to remember what happened in the previous episode and pay attention so I know whats happening in the next episode

Things on cable are more focused on self contained episodes. Black mirror accomplished this but again, it was too emotionally heavy. Netflix is too focused on binge watchers.

I haven't really found content (except old series from cable) that I can just "zone out" and be entertained like Futurama, cooking or auto shows and not worry if i didnt watch all of it.

I'm overseas and so I dont have a lot of the series from cable on Netflix. The content it has is good. But its not something I want to unwind with in the background.

In the US at least, you could put together a profile with a lot of fairly mindless sitcoms, cooking shows, reality TV, etc. But I agree it's not as easy to just put something on in the background. And the streaming model and perhaps just the current era of TV shows, where a lot of subscribers deliberately select something to watch, probably encourages a focus on more complex--and often serialized--TV.

I just don't watch a lot but I definitely understand your point of view. Shows like Game of Thrones I'll sometimes doze off or get distracted and ten minutes later I have no idea what's going on. A lot of the series on TV today really require paying strict attention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com