Why does something seem to have become synonymous with streaming media controversy?
Of course I’m talking about the “+” in the service name, the last time I was New York Times. Of course, the number of services that we have added a “+” to the title of its content streaming service is absurd. Now, we have AMC +, Apple TV +, BET + Discovery +, Disney +, Documentary +, ESPN +, Hulu + Live TV (although since normal Hulu, this is worth discussing Officially dropped “Plus” (whose name dates back to 2015), Paramount (Paramount +), and of course other things I’m ignoring here. This doesn’t even consider other non-entertainment services using “+”, especially services from Apple’s premium subscription ecosystem.
However, please listen to me: I think “+” is very good and even helpful for overcoming the chaos of our streaming media environment.
Obviously, my colleagues disagree with this view. Consumer technology reporter Victoria Song absolutely eliminated “+” (and me) Blog about trends As early as September. At the time, I argued that “+” is a simple expression of what a product is or what to do for consumers, although some applications of “+” are not completely consistent with streaming media.
Victoria cited Apple News+ as an example because it is not a streaming service.but it Yes An extended experience that adds more value to users than the standard Apple News provides, and can be easily inferred from the “+” in the more advanced names of the two options.Actually, I think HBO Max losing “Max” and adding “+” will make the company have a headache when communicating how the new service is different from H&O, H&O Go (RIP) and H&O Now (AT&T) Sucks Spectacularly. If AT&T executives choose to name the service HBO+, it may be easier for consumers to understand, which means HBO not only has more value.
I think the biggest reason “+” is useful to consumers actually comes down to how many services currently exist, all of which are striving for loyal users. Too many choices, “+” seems to be an easy way to remind consumers what the product might do, especially where it is suitable for streaming services. Someone may be able to easily infer the functions of BET+ or Paramount+ without spending too much time thinking, just as consumers intuitively understand the functions of YouTube TV, Pluto TV, Sling TV and FuboTV. The “+” eliminates most guesswork, especially when it is associated with a brand that consumers already know.
What I want to say is that I found that there is a “+” application that is crazy, but it has little to do with the inclusion of “+” itself, but has to do with the additional hardware and software ecosystem. Apple TV+ streaming services are available on the Apple TV app, and both can be found on the Apple TV set-top box.this is Extraordinaryÿ Bad brand-crazy. Apple TV+ is good and understandable.But we really have to call it and two Existing products, one of them is an application and the other is hardware? Come on, Apple.
Listen, is it annoying for so many services to name their services in the same format? of course. Is it boring? Absolutely. But I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing-at least not when we have many options. Do not add “+”.