That certainly seems like a lot of money to spend on TV shows you've never heard of (and it is!), but cost creep should be the least of our concerns when it comes to The Real Problem with Streaming.

While most articles covering this topic tend to over-index on the cost of streaming vs. cable (and the jury is still sort of out on that), the same number of articles share a tendency to under-index on the other two key flaws of streaming, both of which easily eclipse any concern over expense: Content restrictions and the Illusion of Choice.

The reason why these issues overshadow cost is simple (if a bit tautological): They are the reason why cost is even an issue. In other words, if they weren't an issue, then streaming would be worth the cost.

The con (as in drawback) of content restrictions is straightforward: You can only watch the programming licensed (or straight-up owned) by the streamer you are subbed to. Incidentally, before the so-called Streaming Wars started in earnest, Netflix tried to get ahead of the game by amassing a robust arsenal of original shows they believed would offset the need to license expensive content from rival studios. It worked for a while, but eventually it stopped working because A) original content is also expensive, and B) people don't know or care who owns what, they just want watch to good stuff. 

Which brings us neatly to the other con (as in scam) of streaming: The Illusion of Choice. 

To be very clear, by "illusion of choice" I don't mean there aren't enough shows or movies to pick from. Nor do I mean the opposite, that there are so many shows and movies to choose from that picking one to watch becomes impossible (though that is certainly a real thing!). What I mean is that, particularly given the restrictions placed on the programming of each individual streamer as discussed above, limiting yourself to any one streamer (or even multiple streamers) inherently limits which shows and/or movies you could potentially be exposed to.

The illusion of choice is many times more insidious than mere content restrictions. Where the latter is evident from the very absence of a certain title (say, Elaine May's The Heartbreak Kid), the former obscures the title's absence by offering ostensible replacements in the form of alternate programming. Why is this such a huge deal? Because you don't know what you don't know.

You see, "choice" implies options. But when the options are pre-selected for you by a monolithic streamer, you're not so much "choosing" as you are "settling." Back in the days of linear TV, you didn't get to choose what was on at any given moment, but the trade-off was that you might find yourself watching something really great that you had no idea even existed. 

That is simply not an option with on-demand streaming.

Since the death of traditional programming blocks, many staples of extemporaneous TV (classic films, educational series, gentle instructional shows, etc.) have been relegated to the dustbin of history, either by being hidden from view by an algorithm with an aggressive recency bias, or by being made entirely unavailable to stream due to aforementioned licensing issues or a lack of corporate interest. And therein lies the single greatest benefit of linear over streaming: The possibility of happening across truly unexpected programming.

That now mostly defunct phenomenon had a critical cascading effect on programming and creative leeway as the "next big thing" could literally come from anywhere at any time. In the streaming era, false choice has given rise to false data on viewer likes and dislikes, significantly restricting studio appetite for risk-taking, and leading to a runaway sequel and reboot culture that is destroying cinema as we know it.

I could easily take this a step further and blame streaming for contributing more than any other institutional entity to the fragmentation of society, the negative consequences of which are both obvious and still coming into view. And I just might do that... 

But for now I'll conclude on a lighter note by expressing the hope that linear-TV-adjacent FAST services like Pluto and Tubi (more on them below) continue their rapid ascent and help usher in a new era of whimsical programming that encourages all streamers to lower their prices and increase their value.