People are watching less and less Television. Is it possible that streaming TV may be so desperate they pay for a viewing TV along with their services in say 20 years or even sooner?
Don’t give them ideas… I don’t want to subscribe to 10 individual TVs that only play a single streaming service.
People have tablets, phones, and computer screens that they can watch streaming from. I don’t see why a streaming service would give out actual equipment.
They already send the tv’s out at cost to collect your data to sell.
They’re starting to ship them with chips in them to send the data away whether connected to WiFi or not
And they’re taking screenshots of what you watch, including when you plug in a laptop.
We’re almost there
They’re starting to ship them with chips in them to send the data away whether connected to WiFi or not.
So you have a source for this claim?
But that’s TV manufacturers, not streamers.
Your new Netflix Amazon Microsoft Telescreen has arrived.
Please ensure you stay in full view during the replacement process and comply with the required spatial analysis test before decommissioning your previous device.
Have a nice day.
Kind regards, The Ministry of Entertainment.
There is one TV that is free because it comes with banner ads across the bottom, and a camera to verify that people are watching.
Nah, it’s still not free. They’ll charge you a monthly fee for that TV (only $10 a month for a $400* TV, so convenient!). A higher tier of subscription lets you turn off the banner ads. Through a menu in the TV settings that they mislabelled, and it tends to get hidden behind the banner ads. And with every weekly update, it turns back on.
What a garbage model of selling a TV and subscription
I used to use NetZero. Free dialup internet that injected ads into your web browser because HTTPS wasn’t common back then.
It’s the Rent-A-Center demographic they’re targeting, my friend.
Oh boy, more business targeting people who don’t have good money management skills
Yup.
No. This is capitalism. Executives would let their entire industry die before letting a single dollar of profit elude them. If less people watch TV, they just cut the budget of the shows they produce. They will never be desperate for you to stay.
I get what you’re saying and I mostly agree, but, they make that money through advertising, and if nobody’s watching, why would I pay to show my ads to nobody? If CBS starts streaming live on Netflix, they’d probably get more viewers.
Source: Sold advertising for the local paper, or at least tried to. Nobody reads the paper, and everybody knows it.
Broadcast television ratings have been in freefall for at least a generation. They’ve just adjusted by making these shows a lot cheaper to make, including adding a lot of unscripted content.
I know this was discussed heavily when Jay Leno had his crappy show on at 9:30. It had terrible ratings, but it was cheap enough to make that NBC still made money even if it couldn’t charge as much for ads.
Doesn’t matter. If they lose all advertisers, they shutter the channel. And if all channels have been shut down, the industry has died. Which they would rather let happen than give up any profit by giving people free stuff.
And at some point, the execs cash their last bonus check, give the company to some poor intern, and fail upwards to a new industry.
Aren’t they already kind of doing that? I mean they’re not giving it away obviously, but like I think Disney plus streams like a channel or two constantly. I think Prime does too.
I initially misunderstood also. He didn’t mean tv service he meant an actual tv.
Unless he didn’t and everyone else misunderstood.
