Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 6:42:08 GMT -5
I mean, wouldn't it be easier to just pay the parent company a fee every month?
I think the motivation is to ensure people still pay for cable or satellite just so they can use one stinking app. I'm not paying $120 a month just so I can watch FX Now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Father Dougal McGuire on Apr 28, 2017 7:33:42 GMT -5
Long story short, since most of the times people are dependent on cable companies to get internet, so they will throw it in as a a bonus if the cable companies get a cut. Granted some of the premiums like HBO offer stand alone subscriptions, but they are the rare examples.
Also a lot of networks depend on the cable example to keep lesser channels afloat, ala viacom.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 9:05:22 GMT -5
The business model is all turned around. Cable companies see their cable packages as their product and any apps they offer are "incentives" to buy that cable package.
Selling access to standalone apps that contribute to making their product obsolete probably isn't in their best interest.
|
|
Hawk Hart
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sold his organs.
The Best There Is, the Best There Was, and the Best That There Ever Will Be
Posts: 15,296
|
Post by Hawk Hart on Apr 28, 2017 10:11:55 GMT -5
On the flip side, I pay $35/mo for DirecTV Now monthly and I get excited when they announced we can use a new network app. I'm pretty sure I use FX Now more than I use the actual DirecTV.
|
|
