Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    492 points storf45 | 19 comments | | HN request time: 1.301s | source | bottom
    Show context
    cryptozeus ◴[] No.42157120[source]
    Everyone here talking like this something unique netflix had to deal with. Hotstar live streamed india va Pakistan cricket match with zero issues with all time high live viewership ever in the history of live telecast. Why would viewers paying $20 month want to think about their technical issues, they dropped the ball pure and simple. Tech already exists for this, it’s been done before even by espn, nothing new here.
    replies(3): >>42157893 #>>42159882 #>>42165390 #
    al_borland ◴[] No.42157893[source]
    The Independent reports 35m viewers of that cricket match [0].

    Rolling Stone reported 120m for Tyson and Paul on Netflix [1].

    These are very different numbers. 120m is Super Bowl territory. Could Hotstar handle 3-4 of those cricket matches at the same time without issue?

    [0] https://www.the-independent.com/sport/cricket/india-pakistan...

    [1] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/jake-paul-...

    replies(4): >>42158595 #>>42158852 #>>42160252 #>>42160458 #
    1. dilyevsky ◴[] No.42158595[source]
    Majority of superbowl viewers watch it on cable. Streaming gets fewer than 10M concurrents
    replies(2): >>42160233 #>>42160477 #
    2. firesteelrain ◴[] No.42160233[source]
    Until it switches entirely to Netflix one day
    replies(1): >>42160362 #
    3. DaSHacka ◴[] No.42160362[source]
    Going by their failure this time around, that's not happening anytime soon.
    4. SoftTalker ◴[] No.42160477[source]
    Do people even have cable TV anymore? I have internet from my "cable" company but I don't have the "cable" connected to anything but the modem. Everything I watch is streamed. The only thing connected to my TV is a Roku.
    replies(2): >>42160690 #>>42161054 #
    5. cabinguy ◴[] No.42160690[source]
    I assume you know the answer to your questions is: of course they do. However, I’m in the same boat as you. The joke’s on us, I guess.
    replies(1): >>42160743 #
    6. SoftTalker ◴[] No.42160743{3}[source]
    I guess my question is: why? "Cable boxes" are uniformly awful to use in my experience. The UI is clunky, they take up space and it's another remote and another tangle of wires to try to hide. What advantage do they offer in 2024?
    replies(4): >>42161070 #>>42161398 #>>42161533 #>>42161776 #
    7. reaperducer ◴[] No.42161054[source]
    Do people even have cable TV anymore?

    Six seconds on the Google shows 58 million households in the United States. So, roughly 145,000,000 people.

    You make the tech bubble mistake of believing that high speed internet is as ubiquitous as coax.

    replies(1): >>42167003 #
    8. reaperducer ◴[] No.42161070{4}[source]
    What advantage do they offer in 2024?

    They exist in places where the internet infrastructure is not adequate for constant multiple streams.

    Content is king. And there's lots of content on cable that is not on streaming. Just consider local and regional news and sports.

    Many residential buildings, like the one in which I live, include cable TV with the rent. Why add more clutter and expense for streaming?

    There are plenty of other reasons. Your position seems to be "stop liking things I don't like."

    9. MBCook ◴[] No.42161398{4}[source]
    > What advantage do they offer in 2024?

    Live news and sports is huge for a ton of people.

    You have access to all the shows from the major networks. You don’t need to subscribe to Peacock and Paramount and Hulu and the TBS app and Discovery+ and…

    Better yet, they’re all combined in one interface as opposed to all trying to be the only thing that you use.

    Also, especially if you grew up with it, there is absolutely a simplicity in linear TV. Everyone was used to a DVR. And yeah the interface sucks, but it sucked for everyone already anyway so they’re used to it. Don’t know what you wanna watch? Turn on a channel you watch and just see what’s on. No looking at 400 things to pick between.

    I’ve seen people switch off and have serious trouble because it’s such a different way of watching TV from what they were used to. They end up using something like Hulu Live or YouTube TV to try and get the experience they’re used to back.

    replies(3): >>42161528 #>>42161893 #>>42164158 #
    10. conductr ◴[] No.42161528{5}[source]
    This. I’m exactly in this YouTube tv camp and most the time just miss the simplicity of the old cable. Having to find things to watch is for me and awful experience. Then when I do want to watch something trying to figure out which app it’s actually on is awful. I think we subscribed to a dozen different things, it’s so damn fragmented. Even in early days if Netflix, I was a holdout that kept going to blockbuster because the UI of visually scanning a wall/shelf of DVDs was far superior to the Netflix version of the same IMO.

    This is definitely turning into my version of an old man rant. “Back in my day…” the main benefit of it all is I actually just don’t watch as much as I once did. The friction is too high. Or, the commitment is too high-I dont usually want to jump into some 10 episode series.

    replies(2): >>42161835 #>>42162038 #
    11. miki123211 ◴[] No.42161533{4}[source]
    From my experience? The ability to punch in a channel number (or not even that) and get something playing, instantly, without the need to make a choice.

    For many people, often those with backgrounds that make them unlikely to frequent HN, the experience they're looking for is "1. get home, 2. open beer, 3. turn TV on, 4. watch."

    The default state of a streaming app is to ask you what you want to watch, and then show you exactly the thing you selected. The default state of traditional TV is to show you something, and let you switch to something else if you can't stand the thing you're watching right now or have something specific in mind. Surprisingly, many people prefer the latter over the former.

    The same applies to radio versus streaming, many family members of mine don't use streaming, because all it takes to turn on the radio is turning the key in the ignition, which they have to do anyway.

    12. yearolinuxdsktp ◴[] No.42161776{4}[source]
    https://www.cabletv.com/blog/why-people-still-pay-for-cable says it’s inertia, live sports and ease of use.

    Don’t act so surprised—-streaming is a pain in the ass to figure out. People have been trained to tolerate a 3-second UI lag for every button press (seemingly all cable boxes are godawfully shitty like this—-it must be the server-side UI rendering design?)

    BUT! You can record your game and the cable TV DVR is dead reliable and with high quality. There is no fear of competing for Wi-Fi bandwidth with your apartment or driveway neighbors, and the DVR still works even if cable is out. And as long as you haven’t deleted the recording it won’t go away for some stupid f’ing reason.

    Finally, the cable TV DVR will let you fast forward through commercials—-or you can pause live TV to break for bathroom and make a snack, so you can build up a little buffer, now you are fast forwarding commercials on nearly-live TV. You can’t fast forward commercials with most mainstream streaming anymore. Who broadcasts your big games? Big players like Paramount+ won’t let you skip commercials anymore. The experience is now arguably worse. Once you settle in, forward 30sec back 30sec buttons work rather smoothly (that’s one part of cable TV boxes that has sub-half-second latency).

    Your concern about extra remotes and extra boxes and hiding wires is a vanity most don’t care about. They are grateful for how compact big-screen TVs are these days compared to the CRTs or projection TVs of the past. They probably have their kids’ game console and a DVD/BluRay player on the same TV stand anyway.

    Apparently movies purchased on Roku are now on Vudu. I hope that people who bought movies on Roku were able to figure it out. This is how technology sucks. Movies purchased with my cable provider’s Video On Demand are still with me, slow as shit as navigating to them is.

    replies(1): >>42164556 #
    13. TRiG_Ireland ◴[] No.42161835{6}[source]
    I've certainly listened to some fascinating documentaries on BBC Radio 4 on subjects which it would never have occurred to me to seek out. There's definitely some advantages to linear broadcast.
    14. rustcleaner ◴[] No.42161893{5}[source]
    All my stuff is combined in one interfare with Kodi. It is nice to have a TV which fully 100% respects me!
    15. MBCook ◴[] No.42162038{6}[source]
    Well I haven’t gone back to linear TV, I totally get it.

    I don’t subscribe to anything that doesn’t work with my Apple TV. Netflix for example won’t integrate with it the way Hulu does. So whatever show I’m watching on Netflix? Wouldn’t show up in my show list on my Apple TV. I forget it exists.

    So I don’t subscribe to it. Or anything else like that. You are NOT more important than me, service I pay for.

    The only two exceptions are YouTube (which obviously works differently) and Plex for the few things that I already already owned on DVD or can’t get on any service.

    It works well enough for me. But I still find myself missing a linear TV now and then.

    16. Yeul ◴[] No.42164158{5}[source]
    I don't have TV but I watched the Euro football team matches at my mom's because guess what watching sport streams at 480p is no fun- and it frequently breaks because the internet wasn't meant for live broadcasting to a large audience.
    17. vel0city ◴[] No.42164556{5}[source]
    I last regularly used a DirecTV DVR. There were a surprising number of times where it wouldn't let me fast forward through ads. Not only that, sometimes it would connect out to the internet to download new targeted forced ads on stuff that was recorded a while ago.
    replies(1): >>42166700 #
    18. yearolinuxdsktp ◴[] No.42166700{6}[source]
    The horrors! I stand corrected. :(
    19. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.42167003{3}[source]
    >Six seconds on the Google

    I see 68.7 million people, not households. There's my 6 seconds.

    Maybe 10 minutes would give me a better truth.

    >You make the tech bubble mistake of believing that high speed internet is as ubiquitous as coax.

    Yes, and no. Given that the top US cities contain about 8% of the population, you can cover a surprising amount of large country with a surprisingly small amount of area coverage. So it's not as straightforward as "people in SF are in a bubble".