It's hard to say who's winning the streaming wars, but customers are losing
If you look at twenty years ago, there&#x27;s far more content available now, for far less money. Your minimum cable outlay back then would still cover the cost of a couple streaming services.<p>What there <i>isn&#x27;t</i> is a good way to get a single subscription to watch anything you want. The cable bundle was close to that for TV content, but very lacking for movies. So if you want to watch a really wide sampling of TV content, it can feel like we&#x27;re going backward, since there&#x27;s no more one-stop-shop.<p>Careful what you wish for? The big desire then was a la carte, and right now you can bounce between streaming services at will, and they&#x27;re all still far easier to cancel than cable.<p>Some things have fallen through the cracks, particularly long-running (going back to the pre-streaming era) major-network content like the aforementioned Survivor (a random missing episode seems like a weird problem, would love to know what was going on). And getting US content stuff internationally is often sub-par, although... I don&#x27;t recall stories of this being easy at all two decades ago.<p>So consumers are overall definitely winning, but it&#x27;s not a perfect victory for everyone.