When Netflix first took off, it felt like the end of overpriced cable packages filled with channels you never watched, rented set-top boxes, and rigid TV schedules. With streaming, you get unlimited access to shows and movies on your streaming device for a flat monthly fee. The best part is that you can watch them whenever you want and without ads. Cutting the cord meant freedom.
But fast forward a decade, and that freedom is getting harder to find. Today, you are likely juggling multiple streaming apps if you want access to all the biggest shows and movies. Your streaming bill can easily rival what cable used to cost. To combat subscription fatigue, companies are now bundling services together. These streaming bundles are now quietly recreating the cable model they were supposed to disrupt.
Related
Multiple streaming platforms make it hard to keep up with content
The paradox of choice
In the early days of streaming, Netflix was the go-to platform for everything from Breaking Bad to The Office. For a flat monthly fee, you could pick the services, cancel anytime, and never deal with ads or hidden charges. You can binge entire seasons at your own pace, a significant change from cable’s expensive, commercial-filled world.
Soon, media giants realized how valuable streaming could be and started launching their platforms. Disney+, HBO Max, Hulu, Apple TV+, Peacock, Paramount+ and others entered the fray. Each platform started reclaiming the content they had once licensed to Netflix or others. Suddenly, streaming was not a single destination anymore. Must-watch series and movies got locked behind different paywalls.
Competing services offered exclusive content, followed by rising prices and confusing subscription tiers. Instead of paying $100 monthly for cable, you now pay $10 to $20 per service. However, the cumulative membership costs keep rising since you often need four or five services to keep up with content. The price tag can climb even higher if you want to watch live sports.
Streaming bundles and the illusion of value
You’re paying for content you might never watch
Source: Disney+
To address the problem of user fatigue, companies have started bundling streaming services. Disney offers a discounted package that includes Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+. Amazon offers Channels inside Prime Video, letting users subscribe to third-party streamers like Crunchyroll, MGM+, Max, Paramount+, or AMC+ through its platform. Apple bundles Apple TV+ with Apple Music, Apple Fitness+, iCloud+, and Fitness+ under its Apple One plan.
These bundles make sense individually since they offer savings and convenience, especially for families. Why pay $10 each for three services when you can get them all for $25? But the catch is that you are paying for content you might never watch, just like cable. If you only want ESPN+ and Hulu, you must still pay for Disney+ when you buy the bundle. Dropping a single service becomes tougher once you purchase a bundle. You are more likely to keep paying for the whole package, even if your interest dwindles, simply because the “savings” feel like too good a deal to pass up. Streaming bundles create the same centralized and bloated experience that once defined cable.
Source: Lucas Gouveia/Android Police | MIA Studio/Shutterstock
To be fair, bundles aren’t inherently bad. They’re convenient and often cost less than subscribing to services individually. For families or users with varied interests, they can be great value.
While streaming bundles offer consumers some savings, the biggest winners are the companies. By combining services, streamers can pad subscriber numbers, reduce churn, and cross-promote content more efficiently. Bundles also create a buffer against market saturation. If Disney+ alone isn’t growing fast enough, tying it to ESPN+ and Hulu helps keep the numbers up.
It’s also a strategy to hide declining engagement. Some of these services, particularly legacy ones like Discovery+ or Peacock, struggle to attract new users. Bundling allows them to quietly piggyback off more popular siblings. It extends their lifespans and keeps ad revenues flowing.
Live TV is still a mess on streaming platforms
Get ready to pay more
Source: Roku
Streaming has also failed to fully replace live TV, especially for sports and local channels. If you want to watch the NFL, NBA, and MLB, you’ll need a live TV package plus subscriptions to apps like ESPN+, Peacock, and Paramount+. Although services like YouTube TV, Hulu + Live TV, and Sling TV offer live packages, they come with a hefty price tag. YouTube TV now costs a whopping $83/month. Other services like Hulu + Live TV and Sling TV are as bloated and expensive as cable.
Streaming subscriptions are becoming the new cable package
We’re back to square one
Source: Roku
The original pitch for streaming was cutting the cord and only paying for what you wanted. But the reality is that content costs money, and content creators want to make as much of it back as possible. We’re now seeing a return to bundling, where the priority is retention and revenue. Meanwhile, customers are stuck with lock-ins and tiered pricing.
To counter rising subscription prices, free ad-supported television (FAST) platforms such as Pluto TV, Tubi, and Amazon Freevee offer a cable-like experience. They provide a decent alternative for casual viewers. But they’re not a replacement for fans of premium content and live sports.
Related
7 ways I protect my streaming platforms from hackers
Learn essential tips to protect your streaming platforms from hackers
Streaming is looking more like cable now
Streaming was supposed to give viewers more control. But the service is slowly morphing into something that looks a lot like the past with bundled content, rising costs, and limited flexibility. The streaming system is beginning to look like the cable TV it was meant to replace, with a few major players controlling all the content.
