Last night, Comcast introduced a new cord-cutter alternative. Called Stream, the service gives you online access to broadcast networks and HBO for $15 a month. Well, probably not you. And probably not just those channels. Right now, Comcast doesn’t have a streaming service any more than an acorn has limbs and leaves.

Let’s review the Stream that Comcast announced today before we consider the Stream that will actually find its way into most people’s homes sometime in 2016, if only because it’s such an odd duck. A handful of channels, delivered via Comcast Internet subscription, to your mobile device or computer browser. Add to that cloud DVR storage and Streampix, a collection of mostly old or unfamiliar on-demand movies.

That seems fine enough, especially given that a streaming HBO Now subscription on its own costs the same $15. It gets less appealing from there, though. Because the service is “IP-managed,” you can only take advantage of it in your own home. Simultaneous streams are limited to two devices, which should be enough for most households but may be too strict a constraint for some. And perhaps most discouragingly, as of now Comcast won’t be offering the service on Roku, Amazon’s Fire TV, or any other set-top box. In other words, barring HDMI cable contortions, this isn’t just a deal for cord-cutters; it’s for people who only want to watch television on the smallest screens they own.

Which is a strange choice! It’s difficult to fathom who exactly would want a service like this, especially given that it will at first be limited to Comcast customers in Boston this summer, then Seattle and Chicago later this year. Consider, too, that Comcast already offers a very similar “skinny bundle” of Internet plus broadcast TV that’s nearly identical to the streaming version, just limited to phones, tablets, and laptops rather than television sets. It’s worth noting, as Recode has, that the cable version of the plan ends up being significantly cheaper.

If the whole thing causes brain cell strain, fear not: It’s all moot anyway.

“We have no clue what the service will actually look like when it comes to consumers,” says streaming-media analyst Dan Rayburn. “I look at all these announcements and think nothing of them… It’s hard to judge a service if you don’t truly know what it’s going to look like.”

Which, frankly, we don’t. For all the headlines grabbed, Stream right now is barely a trickle. It’s more accurately thought of as a pilot program, a tiny trial balloon being tentatively floated rather than an orbit-smashing streaming rocket. The details Comcast outlined will be available in Boston, sure. They’ll just as surely change as Comcast figures out what exactly consumers want.

“What happens if they roll it out in a couple of test markets and realize that it’s not potentially what they thought it was, they don’t have as much interest as they thought? A lot of things can happen,” explains Rayburn. “That’s the thing with these services, you never know what they’re going to turn into. Until they’re actually on the market and we can judge them on the merits of the actual service, it’s a complete guessing game.”

Comcast could, for instance, decide to include add-on bundles of channels, like recently launched over-the-top streaming Sling TV. It could try to ink a deal with Disney for rights to ESPN, since it currently lacks a compelling sports offering. It could adjust pricing. And those are all just possibilities based on the current landscape; if Apple really does launch its long-rumored streaming television service sometime this year, it could present new challenges to Comcast’s current model. Or not. Nobody really knows—not even Comcast.

There’s also yet another possibility that so far hasn’t been discussed much: Stream may never actually make it out of those first three markets at all. It’s an experiment, which definitionally means it could fail. Although “failure” in this case would just mean Comcast deciding it can make more money elsewhere.

So that's what we're left with today: a streaming service that doesn't look much like it will when it actually launches, if it launches at all.

At least it's a reminder that what comes after cable television is still far from decided. There's plenty of innovation still to be had. We just shouldn't be entirely surprised if it doesn't come from the people with the most to lose.