this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
164 points (93.2% liked)
Technology
59594 readers
3434 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Bundling is only cheaper if I actually want all of the bundled things, but that's not how companies like Comcast bundle things.
Bundling works at scale if you maximize customer pool. I don't think ESPN cable would be affordable to most people without bundling it into cable packages; their TV is subsidized by every non sports watching household. I wish there was more transparency into the costs to determine if you are coming ahead or behind in the bundling.
But at the end of the day everyone hates paying for multiple streaming apps. To me that means people just want a bundle that magically has everything they want to watch.
Then it's not a viable network.
But that's exactly why people started ditching cable in the first place. They wouldn't be bundling ESPN with non-sports channels, they would bundle other less popular sports channels with ESPN so they can jack up the price because ESPN. But ESPN doesn't carry the sports I follow, and I can't get the network that does without paying double because it's in a bundle with ESPN.