Yes, Apple subscriptions are a reliable way to signup for HBO or Showtime to binge-watch a specific show. Signup and immediately cancel the subscription, that gives you 30 days to watch. No further payment management actions needed.
I currently have Netflix, Hulu, and Prime, with a number of "add on" subscriptions for Prime. This is one place I think Amazon really got it right. I login to Prime, and I can watch Prime specific content, as well as stuff from Showtime, HBO, Shudder and CuriosityStream, and it's all seamless. Plus if I want to pay for one of those "one off" movies that isn't part of a base streaming subscription, I can just click a button and it's charged to my Amazon account. I have my own issues with Amazon sometimes, but their idea of "add ons" really makes Prime a lot more desirable a service from a streaming standpoint.
Now the flip-side is, I don't really want to know how much all those little $4.99/month, $8.99/month, $7.99/month "add ons" are costing me in aggregate. :-)
Limited grasp of human behavior? You're describing the average economist there, unfortunately. :)
Bundling all 100 channels for $40 doesn't benefit everyone. There are a ton of assumptions embedded in that analysis that may, or may not be true. You assume that every channel yields positive marginal utility, for example.
Personally, I would pay for maybe three cable channels. But each additional channel would lower my utility because of the knowledge that I was contributing to its existence (I sleep better at night knowing that I am not contributing to the development of shows about obese people with 14 children, etc.). Thus, I do not have cable at all.
You also assume that each channel costs the same to provide. Under an a-la-carte pricing scheme the prices would be all over the map because cable providers couldn't afford to offer certain channels for $1. So "the average customer chooses 30" would become a bit more complicated.
There are also probably psychological issues in play. For instance, why aren't HBO and Showtime part of "basic" cable? Surely they could make more money through bundling! Starz was included (bundled) with Hulu (or was it Netflix?) for awhile, but it was removed because the network feared losing its image as a "premium" brand. I suspect HBO feels the same way.
Beyond this, a television channel is a bundle in itself. You get a set of shows (or even episodes) and movies that you can't alter. So even if channels were un-bundled, the bundling would just move from cable providers to networks themselves, or to other intermediaries such as Hulu.
Hacker Cinema
3 comments on Hacker News
Yes, Apple subscriptions are a reliable way to signup for HBO or Showtime to binge-watch a specific show. Signup and immediately cancel the subscription, that gives you 30 days to watch. No further payment management actions needed.
I currently have Netflix, Hulu, and Prime, with a number of "add on" subscriptions for Prime. This is one place I think Amazon really got it right. I login to Prime, and I can watch Prime specific content, as well as stuff from Showtime, HBO, Shudder and CuriosityStream, and it's all seamless. Plus if I want to pay for one of those "one off" movies that isn't part of a base streaming subscription, I can just click a button and it's charged to my Amazon account. I have my own issues with Amazon sometimes, but their idea of "add ons" really makes Prime a lot more desirable a service from a streaming standpoint.
Now the flip-side is, I don't really want to know how much all those little $4.99/month, $8.99/month, $7.99/month "add ons" are costing me in aggregate. :-)
Limited grasp of human behavior? You're describing the average economist there, unfortunately. :)
Bundling all 100 channels for $40 doesn't benefit everyone. There are a ton of assumptions embedded in that analysis that may, or may not be true. You assume that every channel yields positive marginal utility, for example.
Personally, I would pay for maybe three cable channels. But each additional channel would lower my utility because of the knowledge that I was contributing to its existence (I sleep better at night knowing that I am not contributing to the development of shows about obese people with 14 children, etc.). Thus, I do not have cable at all.
You also assume that each channel costs the same to provide. Under an a-la-carte pricing scheme the prices would be all over the map because cable providers couldn't afford to offer certain channels for $1. So "the average customer chooses 30" would become a bit more complicated.
There are also probably psychological issues in play. For instance, why aren't HBO and Showtime part of "basic" cable? Surely they could make more money through bundling! Starz was included (bundled) with Hulu (or was it Netflix?) for awhile, but it was removed because the network feared losing its image as a "premium" brand. I suspect HBO feels the same way.
Beyond this, a television channel is a bundle in itself. You get a set of shows (or even episodes) and movies that you can't alter. So even if channels were un-bundled, the bundling would just move from cable providers to networks themselves, or to other intermediaries such as Hulu.