Fair enough. End of the day many if not all complained about a Sky monopoly. (although technically incorrect) We want competition. We now have it. While it would be convenient to conglomerate all the services into one platform, its not really needed. I use an ATV4. The cops are there, chose one to watch Last of Us, Star Trek Discovery etc. Easy. I have to go to a YouTube app so who cares of its TV3, Netflix, Amazon, etc?
But from this thread its not about convenience, its about cost, so conglomeration doesnt cover that.
I don’t think it is just about cost. It’s about removing value from a service. But also about perceived fairness in removing a “feature” that was previously encouraged and then charging to add it back.
I tried an ATV4K and the universal search didn’t search all services, which made it pretty useless as a means of removing complexity. I tried Shield TV, I don’t actually remember what the issue was with that except that I wasn’t satisfied with it as a unifying platform (I think it was the absence of user profiles that was the dealbreaker ). Regardless, both were returned.
We have several services, but my partner doesn’t bother with half of them because it’s too hard to keep track of what service has what content. She just wants to be able to easily browse all available content.
The bulk of this thread may not be about convenience, but the overall dissatisfaction many people have with the streaming market is as much about convenience as it is about cost in my opinion. Less convenience means lower value, and at a certain point people see the value as lower than it’s worth and they pull the plug. For some (probably not a huge percentage) this will be the straw that breaks the camels back.