Here are excerpts from the OP article:

Most importantly, we should all remember that this content war is hinged upon a fundamental misunderstanding of viewing habits. Netflix didn’t become a monster because people wanted to watch a specific show; it became a monster because people wanted to watch everything. When its streaming platform launched, people were spending more than £15 just to watch a single season of a show on DVD. So to be able to watch every season of a show – and every season of hundreds of others of shows – for a fiver a month was revolutionary. The whole point of Netflix was that it was a relatively affordable bucket that contained an awful lot of television. That’s why people liked it. That’s why so many people subscribed and continue to subscribe. To pretend otherwise is to miss the point.

That will be a memory soon. The Netflix model was great for viewers, but it couldn’t last. The content creators got greedy and scared, and now they’re determined to drag things back to the bad old ways. They will force everyone to pay for everything separately, and the subscriber base will split, and the providers will have to recoup the money they are spending to take on Netflix – such as the $500m that NBCUniversal spent to get The Office back, the $250m Amazon is spending on a Lord of the Rings series and the $500m that Warner just spent to win the services of JJ Abrams – which means that subscriptions will rise. Make no mistake: we’re the ones likely to get stiffed here. The golden age of television may be going strong, but the golden age of streaming is dead.

Anyone care to estimate how much you'll have to pay monthly - adding up all the different subscriptions - to be able to watch all your favourite shows in the future?


Side note:

Perhaps it'll be cheaper to buy the DVD or BRD - used, if possible - of your favourite shows? Or will those prices rise exponentially too? Or even worse, disappear - not made anymore - so that you'll be completely dependant on the streaming services, and you'll have to keep paying to see the same show again - and other shows - until you're milked dry or the end of time - whichever comes first?

I think we should be more patient with these streaming services. It seems there are huge bidding wars going on for "world wide" eyeballs. Obviously, the services that can get the "best" combination of shows wanted by the most people in the end, will win. This will have an impact on the quality, scope and appeal of the shows that get made and even affect the quality and direction of the shows we currently watch and call our favorites. I personally think this is what is behind CBS's strategy regarding the ST franchise. Corner the market with ALL THINGS ST ( Picard, DSC, Section 31, the cartoon series,short treks plus the old series TOS, TNG, VOY, DS9 and ENT) so that nationally, CBS ALL access becomes the most cost effective choice for the US viewer. A similar struggle is taking place in the international marketplace. Streaming services will bid the most for the shows they think will be most attractive to their viewers based on what the viewers think are the BEST shows. This may take a while but eventually the "GLOBAL marketplace" will make things cheaper for the average tv viewer. Does this mean that some shows might temporarily be more expensive, for some viewers? yes. However eventually what will happen is the BEST shows will be available to the MOST people on the BEST streaming platforms.( i.e. at the most valued costs)

Netflix announced that they will start an European production facility in the UK .So far Netflix seems to be the most successful provider in Europe probably of what the article mentioned that you get a lot of choice for a little fee.CBS all access suffers from having far too little choice for the fee they ask and would hardly be a competition for the likes of Netflix ,HBO,Apple and Disney who are able to deliver far more content.CBS entered the arena too late and one wonders if the Apple streaming service will be that successful either

Dutch female soccer team wins 1-0 against Sweden,Saturday they will face the USA in the finals of the World cup

@Nexus71 said:

Dutch female soccer team wins 1-0 against Sweden,Saturday they will face the USA in the finals of the World cup

OT:

So that means, even if they lose against the World Champion USA, at least they'll have equalled the position of the Dutch male football team from 1974 and 1978 (both times second place).

Not bad, when there's all that negative and hateful comments by the Dutch males, including some presenters in the media, belittling the accomplishments of their own Dutch women team.

So that means, even if they lose against the World Champion USA, at least they'll have equalled the position of the Dutch male football team from 1974 and 1978 (both times second place).

You forgot the male soccer team were in the finals in South Africa against Spain in 2010 and were third in Brazil in 2014 beating the national team ,but yeah they would have equaled the male soccer team if they loose against the USA but the Dutch are the reigning European champions.If they on the other hand would win the world cup they would have surpassed the male soccer team a point of interest is that on the date of the finals the Dutch male soccer team played their final against West Germany in 1974 45 years ago.And even though the orange mania is no where near that of the male soccer team yet it has grown ever since the females played during the European championship and became champions and the criticism mainly about the team not playing as wel as we have come to expect but so far they won all their matches without spectacular football

What do you mean good sportsmanship ,female soccer was never that popular in the past but it has had a growth spurt the last two years(because of the success and the clubs becoming more professional) where more young girls join female soccer clubs

So far the soccer team has been doing better than expected so reaching the finals is a big deal in itself winning it would be the icing on the cake.

@Invidia said:

So by wishing YOUR TEAM GOOD LUCK against my HOME TEAM, that's also being a GOOD SPORT.

Still OT:

Why are American women so good at soccer?

The team’s success is built on several historical moments, including the passing of Title IX and the women’s World Cups of 1991 and 1999.

These events increased the sport’s popularity, and in turn, the number of female players in the US. With more players, there was more talent.

But it’s hard to consider America’s success without acknowledging the suppression of women’s soccer abroad. Several countries banned the sport in the past, which has lead to a lower level of competition today.

Yeah, the women’s team dominates. In fact, as of 2019, they’re the No. 1 ranked team in the world. So why are American women so good at soccer. Well, it starts with this graph. For at least four decades, women’s soccer has been rapidly gaining popularity in the US.

In 1971, for example, there were only 700 high school female soccer players. But by 2014, that number had grown to nearly 376,000. And more young players means…

Eileen Narcotta-Welp: “…there is going to be an increasing competition, which means that’s going to lead to better technical and tactical play that will weed out the best players.”

It seems like the rest of the world is playing catch-up to the USA.

I'm prejudiced since I am from the opposing team but if the women would succeed where the men have failed to win the World cup it would mean an enormous boost for female soccer over here and the popularity of female soccer in general

@Invidia said:

Since this is also the 100TH ANNIVERSARY of when MEN GRANTED WOMEN the RIGHT to VOTE here in the US, it would also be NICE to see the TEAM WIN for that REASON.

But the USA (women soccer team) already won the World Championship three times. Shouldn't they give other teams a chance?

Yes please it would be nice to see the female soccer team succeed where the men have failed in '74,'78( where Argentine basically frauded their way to the World cup ,the Dutch could never win that final we were robbed )and 2010 (although we got our payback in 2014 in Brazil by giving a lesson in soccer by beating them(Spain) with 5-1 (with that amazing "flying Dutchman " goal by van Persie)

@Invidia said:

Which US TEAM won 3 times??? The MEN or the WOMEN???

The women of course. The US players are winners and dominate women soccer. Up to now they have shown no mercy to their opponents. These are just two of the US top scorers:

• Alex Morgan.

• Megan Rapinoe.

• Sipping tea taunt.

@Invidia said:

But for some reason they also don't look like they'd be the type who'd be willing to do that???

In the US sports is very important and being the best is everything. Only first place counts.
Their opponent can only hope that they won't be humilated by being defeated with more than 5 goals.

@Invidia said:

So maybe there's also a LESSON that one could learn from that EXPERIMENT about the CONSEQUENCES of being TOO COMPETITIVE???

True. But those were children and they still have a lot to learn. In a team sport like football one is taught to cooperate and only the best will get to play in the national team. Everyone knows their position, and if you don't listen to the coach you'll get substituted, or even benched for the next game.

By working as a team the USWNT have become world champions.

Let's hope that the rest of the world will get much better in the coming years, so that the women football games will attract more viewers, and the USWNT can really be challenged.

@Invidia said:

So perhaps they could also create something like that where they could TEST the SOCCER players INDIVIDUALLY???

Maybe something like that could also help to attract more viewers???

Abbey vs Beth, Daniëlle vs referee