I’m not, but neither is that the point. Obviously no one needs any of this, it’s always a matter of want. The question is how much it costs to get it, today, yesterday, and tomorrow. People crowing about the downfall of cable packages while ignoring splintering subscriptions for the same content are missing that point, don’t you think?

The point is that it seems media companies, in their greed, have forgotten that streaming only works when it offers something better than piracy. A dozen subscriptions that cost more than a cable package did is offering less, with more impediments to use than a Kodi box. The model will, as a previous poster said, fail. The attempt turn everything from software to hardware into a subscription service, because it’s the easiest way to milk money isn’t some god-given right of corporations either.

Now you can yell about entitlement and whatever else, and I’m not wading into that mess, just explaining how it is based on past precedent.

I think he is simply addressing the argument that today’s environment (multiple streaming services each with exclusive content) is any different than yesterday when it was multiple cable bundles each with exclusive channels.

Of course it is different, today you can pick and choose what you want whereas before you needed to buy the entire thing

You're speaking as if there are only two models: pay a lot for everything or pay for individual channels or shows. I want neither of those things. I want the Spotify model, where I pay 9.99 per month and I get 80% of all music across genres. I'm willing to pay for 1-2 of such services but not 5-6.