Culture
All eyes on us: Streaming's beating cable in the battle for attention

All eyes on us: Streaming's beating cable in the battle for attention

Cut!

It’s arguably never been a better time to be a fan of sitting on your couch and watching TV.

The rise of streaming has brought with it a golden age of television, as more original scripted shows have been made in the last few years than ever before. But, if it’s the golden age for viewers, it’s been more bronze for many involved in the production of our favorite shows and movies.

Indeed, the cameras of Hollywood remain firmly shut, as two major unions, SAG-AFTRA, representing performers, and WGA, the writers' guild, are both striking — the first time that’s happened since the 1960s. Their aims aren’t particularly different from strikers in other industries, negotiating for better wages and working conditions, demands that were perhaps inevitable in the modern entertainment landscape.

Indeed, streaming hasn’t been the plucky upstart for a long time — overtaking cable as the main form of TV consumption last year, accounting for nearly 40% of total TV consumption in America, per data from analytics firm Nielsen.

While traditional TV, a combination of cable and broadcast networks, still commands the majority share, the trend is clear — streaming’s upward trajectory suggests it’s poised to overtake traditional TV viewing in the coming years. That inexorable rise has made Netflix, the early pioneer of the format, a titan. The company is worth some $190bn as of the latest count, making it the most valuable entertainment company on the planet, even more than the ~$160bn of the sprawling empire of Disney — which has theme parks, a thriving merchandise business, box office blockbusters and of course its own streaming effort.

Pivot, pivot… pivot!

Netflix’s journey to streaming domination began in 1998, with the company mailing shipments of new DVDs. But the big idea didn’t come to fruition until 2007 when the company announced it would launch ad-free video streaming via the internet, granting subscribers access through applet, a unique browser users had to install. On top of procuring content, the company knew that having a killer recommendation algorithm was going to be key, even running a competition from 2006-2009 with a $1m prize to any team who could beat the company’s own algorithm — known as Cinematch.

The company toyed with hardware with Project Griffin — a set-top box built to stream Netflix’s content, a project that was canceled by CEO Reed Hastings at the last minute, eventually becoming an early product for Roku. Around the same time, Netflix struck a groundbreaking deal with Cable TV channel Starz, obtaining the rights to stream its extensive library for a yearly fee of ~$30m. Other cable channels soon joined, and the Netflix juggernaut began to pick up steam, with every new subscriber giving them capital to acquire, license and eventually make content.

More Culture

See all Culture
culture
Tom Jones

Charlie Kirk’s Wikipedia page was the top English-language article on the site in 2025

The day after his assassination in September, Charlie Kirk’s Wikipedia page was viewed over 170 times per second, or almost 15 million times, according to figures from the Wikimedia Foundation.

Like with most other years, the top entries of the year reflected the fact that millions flock to the platform to learn more about political figures, films, and fatalities.

Though there’s been much talk about the impact of AI-generated search summaries and chatbots on Wikipedia — not least from the platform itself — it’s still clearly a major go-to resource for anyone looking to learn a little about a lot online, especially if this week’s year-end figures are anything to go by.

Top Wikipedia articles 2025 chart
Sherwood News

Though there’s been much talk about the impact of AI-generated search summaries and chatbots on Wikipedia — not least from the platform itself — it’s still clearly a major go-to resource for anyone looking to learn a little about a lot online, especially if this week’s year-end figures are anything to go by.

Top Wikipedia articles 2025 chart
Sherwood News
culture
Tom Jones

Singer d4vd has been named the top trending person on Google in 2025

If you were asked to name the person who saw the biggest spike in Google searches across 2025, you might plump for a pope, perhaps, or a major political figure. Unless you were one particular Polymarket user, you maybe wouldn’t have put too much money on d4vd, a popular 20-year-old singer who reportedly remains an active suspect in the death of a teen girl.

However, when Google revealed its Year in Search 2025 today — a feature that, importantly, seems to reflect the figures and topics that have seen searches spike from last year, rather than overall search volume — d4vd, whose hits like “Romantic Homicide” and “Here With Me” have racked up billions of Spotify streams, sat atop the “People” section, beating Kendrick Lamar for the top spot.

Google’s top trending people
Google’s Year in Search 2025

As people in the business of making charts all day, you could say that we’re pretty au fait with Google Trends data. Even so, we can admit that Polymarket user 0xafEe may be a true savant when it comes to understanding what people are using the search engine for (though there are also allegations that the user is a Google insider or had other access to the information).

In any case, thanks to a series of what are now proving to be very prescient positions on Polymarket’s “#1 Searched Person on Google This Year” market, 0xafEe has made a medium fortune in the last 24 hours. There was a ~$10,600 “yes” position on d4vd himself — now worth more than $200,000 — as well as “no” positions across other candidates for the title, such as Donald Trump, Pope Leo, and Bianca Censori, all of which have profited substantially. All told, 0xafEe made just shy of $1.2 million on the market.

Latest Stories

Sherwood Media, LLC produces fresh and unique perspectives on topical financial news and is a fully owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., and any views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of any other Robinhood affiliate, including Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood Securities, LLC, Robinhood Crypto, LLC, or Robinhood Money, LLC.