Once upon a time, in the not-so-distant past, we broke free from the tyranny of cable. We ditched bloated bundles, waved goodbye to five hundred channels (of which we watched a dozen, tops), and joyfully embraced the sweet simplicity of on-demand, ad-free content for ten bucks a month.

It was beautiful. It was hopeful. It was…short-lived.

Now here we are, a decade into the streaming revolution, and it feels like we’re falling into the Dark Ages. We’re in a messier, pricier, and more disjointed environment than the cable model we escaped. Say what you will about cable, at least we didn’t need spreadsheets and therapy to keep track of our subscriptions.

While our experience is suffering, it hasn’t been a joyride for the distributors either. Even the “winners” are facing difficulties, to say nothing of those we’ve lost along the way. May Quibi, Seeso, and the many others that have fallen to the wayside rest in peace.

Learning From CNN+

Remember CNN+? No? That’s fine. Neither does Warner Bros. Discovery.

This $5.99/month offering came out swinging, with big names, McKinsey backing, and enough buzzwords to make a Silicon Valley pitch deck blush. “Premium news content!” “Direct-to-consumer revolution!” “Newsy innovation!”

There was just one teensy problem: you couldn’t actually watch CNN on CNN+.

Yes, in the business equivalent of opening a Michelin-star restaurant and forgetting to serve food, CNN+ launched without the live CNN feed. Instead, you got Anderson Cooper’s parenting advice and Jake Tapper's book club. (Did anyone ask for this?) Unsurprisingly, it flamed out in under 30 days.

Consultants may understand market segmentation, but they apparently skipped the chapter on "giving customers what they actually want."

The hard truth is that subscriptions do not equal value. Consumers don’t hate paying. They hate feeling like suckers. And that’s exactly what price creep and weak content creates. If I’m paying $12/month to watch five reruns and a new docuseries about vegan bodybuilders, we have a problem.

Not everything needs to be a standalone service. Looking at you, Fox Nation, AMC+, and BET+. Sometimes, a show is just a show. Bundle it, license it, or put it on YouTube, but don’t expect people to subscribe for a single show on a channel that feels like an afterthought.

Congratulations, You’ve Rebuilt Cable… Only Worse

In the Golden Era of cord-cutting, we had Netflix and chill. Now it’s Netflix, and Prime, and Hulu, and Disney+ and Max plus Paramount+ plus Peacock, with ad tiers and limited upcharges (minus rental fees) plus oh-my-God-why-is-this-happening… and chill.

The streaming economy now resembles a price creep hydra, where every $7.99/month service has morphed into $17.99 with ads, then $23.99 without, all while we weren’t looking.

Discoverability is currently a nightmare. Pop quiz: which streamer has The Bear? Adolescence? Hacks? If your answer is “I don’t know,” then you’re like most of us. Invariably, the show you want is on the app you don’t have, unless you upgrade, bundle, or wait six months. Every platform claims to be “curated” while burying their best content under a mountain of algorithmic filler.

And remember that dream of à la carte viewing? Yeah, turns out it’s just as expensive as the cable bundle. It just feels worse because it’s your fault now.

The Few, The Proud, The Streamers Who Might Survive

It’s not all doom and gloom. A few platforms seem poised to outlast the carnage:

• YouTube: Free, bottomless, algorithmically addictive. The cockroach of the internet (meant as a compliment), it will survive long after all others go by the wayside.

• Netflix: Pricey, yes, but consistent. Its content may be hit-or-miss, but it still feels like TV’s main event.

• HBO Max/Max/Whatever-It’s-Called-This-Quarter: If it can just stop rebranding itself into irrelevance, the core library still holds weight. Succession, The Sopranos, The Wire—these are cultural anchors, not just content. It is the service for people who want to discuss the shows that everyone else is talking about.

• Disney+ (likely with Hulu and ESPN): Trusted family brand that is the home of other beloved brands like Marvel, Pixar and Lucasfilm. Consumers have a deep emotional connection here that buys Disney a lot of leeway in months when the new content offering feels light.

Honorable mention: Apple TV+, which is curating prestige like it’s building a museum. It may not have a huge catalog, but what it does have tends to be exceptional. (Also: free trials forever if you keep buying phones!)

Amazon and its Prime service is in a similar boat to Apple. While the company’s had some early winners with shows like The Boys and has dropped serious money on big IP like Lord of the Rings, it still seems like an experiment in synergy that Jeff Bezos and Andy Jassy could give or take. Anecdotally, I’ve never met a person who’s signed up for the TV service who didn’t already have an Amazon shipping subscription. Have you?

If a streaming service can’t clearly answer “why does this need to exist?” then it probably doesn’t need to.

What’s Next?

Everything old is new again and bundles will be the savior of the streamers. Give people multiple services for a bundled price and consumers start smelling value. Plus, they’re way less likely to cut the cord in a slow month for their favorite service if the other offerings in the bundle help carry the load.

And keep your eyes peeled for the mythical platform that finally cracks the code on cross-service discoverability. Whoever pulls that sword from the stone will rule the streaming kingdom. Until then, we’re all stuck in the paradox of choice—doom-scrolling through an ocean of titles, pretending we're “just browsing.” Personally, it’s giving me serious 500-channel migraine vibes.