I'm sick of goddamned streaming services

I lucked into a 65" Samsung M series last Christmas for $499 from FredMeyer.com. It only has 60hz refresh rate, but I found that fiddling with the settings eliminated the soap opera effect, which drives me nuts. Damn good picture for the price and the Smart features work really well...for now at least. The funny part was that the FedEx sorting facility sent it to Pennsylvania instead of Boise. After I tracked it down, they assured me they'd sent it "priority" air. Bullshit. They tried to ship it to Canada! Anyway, it got intercepted just in time and arrived a week late in good shape despite all the handling.

I think the best advice is to buy the TV not based on any smarts (if it includes apps, ok, but don't look for these) and buy an external box, apple TV (shudder), Roku, or Amazon Fire-TV stick.

I'm perfectly happy with my 7 year old 47" Samsung 1080P (my eyes aren't ultra high def and on that size screen I'm not sure if higher resolution really matters) TV with no smarts, but 2 HDMI and one USB input . But I've swapped boxes a few times.

My favorite service whether it comes via an amazon fire-TV stick or Roku is Amazon Prime ($119/yr). I search for a show. It lists the availability on multiple streaming services and I can either subscribe or pay a-la-carte for the show. Often it's free with Amazon Prime.

Once I've watched what I wanted, if I subscribed and nothing else there interests me, I cancel the subscription.

Right now I'm subscribed to netflix ($12.99/month) but in the past have subscribed to HBO Now, Starz, Showtime, Masterpiece theatre, britbox, and others but I'm careful to cancel them when I'm finished. I might end up subscribing again right away, but often I don't.

If you're paying lots for streaming services. You're either getting lots (all without commercials, bucko) or you're not doing it right.

Shitty Company in Shitty Talks for Shitty Streaming Service

Ahead of the launch of NBCUniversal’s Peacock streaming service launch in April, its parent company is reportedly in “advanced talks” to buy ad-supported streaming service Xumo.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Comcast—which is regularly voted the most hated company in the U.S.—is eyeing an acquisition of the service, which the paper notes the deal could offer support for the various services that fall under Comcast’s umbrella, including the forthcoming Peacock as well as Xfinity and Sky, the European pay-TV giant the company acquired in a massive $39 billion deal last year. The Journal noted that Xumo has been used by other companies to support their streaming services, adding that it additionally “repackages traditional TV content into new digital channels.”

At present, it’s unclear exactly what Peacock will look like at launch, though NBCUniversal said in September that the service would be both ad- and subscription-supported. Citing sources familiar with the matter, CNBC reported last month that NBCUniversal was considering allowing the service to be free to anyone through an ad-supported model. The company is set to reveal further details about the service on January 16 during an investor event.

Nearly every other anticipated service that’s launched this year—and there were so, so many—have been subscription-based (even if, as was the case with services from Apple and Disney, those entry-level subscription prices were relatively low). Hulu, for example, offers both ad-supported and ad-free versions of its service but charges subscription fees for both. There are, however, a few outliers that offer free ad-supported streaming, such as Pluto TV, which was acquired by Viacom this year for $340 million. Amazon also launched free ad-supported streaming through IMDb this year.

Analysts have speculated over whether Netflix may eventually have to turn to ads in order to grow, though the company has vehemently denied those rumors. Likening itself to HBO, the company said in a letter to investors in July that being ad-free “remains a deep part of our brand proposition; when you read speculation that we are moving into selling advertising, be confident that this is false.”

Peacock is in a unique position to offer its service through a free, ad-supported tier. On the one hand, NBC is a cable broadcaster whose viewers are used to seeing ads at length while watching their shows. Moreover, whatever your specific feelings about The Office or any other of the network’s legacy series, Peacock will launch with decades’ worth of shows and movies that people already know and love—which is more than can be said for competitors trying to play catch-up with hastily produced original content.

How viewers respond to whatever ad-supported model Peacock may or may not run with when it launches will likely depend on the quality and frequency of those disruptions. But should the service offer a premium ad-free tier as well, there’s still a good chance viewers will still seize on the ad-supported version. Hulu, for example, charges $6-per-month for its ad-supported plan (the ad-free version costs $12 per month), but the company said in May that 70 percent of its 82 million viewers are on the ad version. But Hulu, like Peacock, has a diverse catalog of content that clearly justifies the subscription cost for a large majority of users.

Whether the ad-supported model will work for retaining viewers, though, is a giant question mark at this point—whether or not media executives think otherwise.

I would actually be likely to watch older content on an ad based service rather than subscribing. If I could throw law and order or MASH on in the background with some commercials and do other things I would probably find a way to set it up. I find without ads I a far more dedicated to the program because I am not taken out of it by the ads. I just don't see any need to get another service because I don't keep up with all the netflix shows I am interested in watching. I would watch something like the mandelorian, but I am not going to get another service for it. Eventually I figure some of these exclusive programs are going to get sold to other services just for the extra viewers anyway. It might be a few years, but I am not that interested in seeing things the moment they come out anymore.

So apparently streaming services are bad for the environment?!?

'Completely unsustainable': How streaming and other data demands take a toll on the environment

Maybe the solution is to just shut down the interwebs. It may raise the collective IQ of the species by several factors.

No, we all see what was happening without being able to communicate with each other. This is the mess that was there when the lights came on. This was always there and probably much worse since all the roaches seem to have either been killed by the initial cleaning or gone into hiding. What we need is more cameras, and more surveillance. Evidently the honor system does not work.

You just thought you were sick of them. Now, you might be starting to get a mild case of dyspepsia.

I ditched HBO Now when I signed up for CBS All Access. I may add Disney+ (TV doesn't support it, so need additional hardware), but that's it. I'm not going to have a dozen of these.

I have a chromecast and it's stupid easy to set up...yes that means that I did it with no trouble...but I think a Roku stick is even better since I gather it has the apps built into it and my chromecast only passes through signals from my computer/iPhone.

Yeah, Roku's aren't hard to set up at all. Hook it up to your TV, connect it to your wifi, set up an account, then hit the store to download the apps you want. You can literally have 1,000+ channels of free content.

The one nice thing about the paid streaming services is that it's easy enough to cancel them. Right now, I only have a subscription to Netflix and Amazon Prime. When The Orville comes back, I'll pick up Hulu again, if I've managed to buy a bigger TV at that point, I'll add Disney+ to watch The Mandalorian, and I'll pick up CBS All Access when Discovery comes back.

Redbox has another new streaming service.

I did not know @We Are Borg was a hipster. Shave that scraggle and get a decent pair of sunglasses. Oh, and if you are going to be that guy just do the manbun and forget the hat.

I don't think @We Are Borg would be caught dead holding up a sign in Manhattan. That's like asking to be deported.

who knows what canadian hipsters do?

Exhibit A: Justin Bieber

Gingers hipsters?

My favorite part of piracy is just how easy it is.

They've sold them to NBC.

Amateurs.

That's basically how I've been watching that new Harley Quinn series

Notice it says pls at the end. That's very Canadian.

After adding a half dozen or so totally worthless (to me) channels YouTubeTV jacked up their rate from $50 to $65.

I've used one of them in the past, but what is the difference between the three?

One you could only get if you had a cable subscription, one you could get if you didn’t have a d CD cable subscription, and one is a brand new service that anyone can get that has things the other two don’t, while they have things that the new one doesn’t. Confused? Good.

DC's streaming service appears to be on the way out. The author of the article appears to be upset at the idea, and I'm just like, "Good." If I'm going to pay for a service, then it had better offer me a variety of things, not merely stuff based on IP owned by one company that's based in a single genre.

Is their a streaming service that can at least knock me unconcious and feel me up before it robs me?

Yes, but you have to want it to.