this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
519 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

57432 readers
4335 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

For a moment, it seemed like the streaming apps were the things that could save us from the hegemony of cable TV—a system where you had to pay for a ton of stuff you didn't want to watch so you could see the handful of things you were actually interested in.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/K4EIh

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 158 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It sucks for consumers...

It sucks for writers...

It sucks for actors...

It sucks for vfx workers...

And the CEOs running the companies and making all the money claims it sucks for them too because after their last couple years of shit decisions, they're making slightly less money.

So maybe those shareholders should re-evaulte who their CEOs are?

Maybe get rid of the people who killed the Golden Goose because they wanted to eat it?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If they’re not losing money, shareholders do not care. The end goal of a corporation is to maximize profits for the shareholders within the confines of the law. So until they start actually costing shareholders substantial amounts of money they will do nothing.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The end goal of a corporation is to maximize profits for the shareholders within the confines of the law.

And if the fine is greater than the profit, or they don't get caught, that's okay too.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Yep. It’s easier to just break the law, pay the fine, and continue making billions over actually stopping the activity that causes the fine. That’s what happens when it’s almost impossible to hold anyone actually personally responsible force actions of a corporation.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 75 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I gave them a chance. They collectively became more & more rapacious & greedy.

Back to sailing the high seas.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Ah, well. There's always piracy.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 year ago

Arrrrr whatever be i to do? 🦜🏴‍☠️

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’ve set sail on the high seas again for the first time in like 15 years.

[–] CreativeCider 10 points 1 year ago

Fun thing, the captain still knows the major trade routes

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago

Luckily VPNs are cheaper

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Discovery's David Zaslav have also indicated that their services were initially priced "too low" in an effort to draw a huge and unendingly expanding subscriber base.

In the early-to-mid 2010s, a subscription to Netflix and Hulu and your friend’s borrowed HBO password could get you access to the vast majority of all the TV that was worth watching.

Netflix had a huge archive of older shows plus a slowly growing library of its buzzy releases like Orange Is the New Black, Jessica Jones, and Stranger Things.

Not content to let Netflix have what looked like a lucrative new market all to itself the companies that made and distributed TV decided one by one as the decade wore on that it was time to create their own apps and generate their own subscription revenue.

Tech companies also decided to jump in, with Amazon Prime Video pushing into expensive scripted dramas and Apple TV+ becoming relevant by dint of throwing untold gobs of money at all kinds of projects.

Netflix announced its first subscriber loss in a decade in early 2022, cratering its stock; despite some recovery, it's still only worth about two-thirds what it was at its peak in late 2021.


I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am happy to steal from corporations. Been doing it all my life and I will never stop. Fuck em.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Things you never hear people say: I couldn't sleep last night worrying about corporate profit margins because I stole some of it. It's the least culpable crime in history.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

At this point, the best way to go (besides sailing) is to subscribe to one or two services at a time, cancelling others month-to-month based on what you want to watch.

We need an app that lets you search for content across all platforms and easily cancel and start subscriptions - queueing them up and helping you easily limit the amount you’re paying monthly.

But with these prices, it’s worth doing that manually.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Right now it's smart to cycle through but I wouldn't be surprised if that is the next thing to go.

What I could see happening is they keep raising monthly prices until the math doesn't work out of them. Then they'll introduce a small discount for locking in multiple months (3,6,12mon). Both will continue to rise in price but month to month will be quicker.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Or straight-up contracts. But I think the next step will be more slow-dripping content.

Netflix just pulled an obvious one by splitting the Witcher season 3 to the release half at the end of June and the other at the end of July. They claim it was for “an effective cliffhanger” but it’s clear they just wanted to squeeze one extra payment out of its viewers who aren’t interested in their other content. Paramount meanwhile stretches all of their Star Trek series out across the entire year.

I imagine platforms will start slow-releasing more of their most popular originals. I wouldn’t put it past them to flood social media with spoilers to punish anyone who’s waiting. I also wouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing one episode per month someday.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Here's how that will go:

Each streaming service will release their own aggregator app. Each of these will have a fee associated with them. Each of these will have certain services they don't work with because the lawyers are still fighting over things. Each of these will eventually reduce their search coverage and promote their own content. "You searched for Star Trek, would you like Star Wars instead?"

Even if an open source third party wrote something that did this, companies would change their API pricing or authentication to break it so people don't leave their walled gardens.

Companies are incapable of making a service that doesn't eventually enshittify.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I will forever wonder how these companies actively choose $0/mo over a cut of $XX/mo and everyone in the decision chain thinks it's the right decision.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Because your 0$ per month after dropping them doesn't hurt their bottom line.

Corporations generally weigh the risks and the benefit often wins out and they make more money because there are enough people that either reluctantly cave into the fee increase, forgot about their subscription or just don't care that it's going up.

It's fairly seldom (but seems to be increasing over the years) to see so much backlash that a company walks back on what they were planning to do.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

My favorite example of the reverse in recent memory has been Wizards of the Coast essentially going back completely and then some on their unpopular OGL changes after a significant portion of their DnD Beyond members canceled their subscriptions.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For me it's back to the pirating era.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sounds like a good time to cancel a subscription and finish the ol' Steam library

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

Capitalism turns everything into shit. Not promises, only profit.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

I've never threw away my jolly roger, it's just safely hidden away

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

Yar har har matey.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

🎶Yar Har, fiddle-de-dee🎶

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://www.togetherprice.com/ - great site to share subscription prices, I've been using it for years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

The only reason I have Netflix is because I get it through T-Mobile as a last resort. Fuck the state of streaming content. Raise the pirate flag boys!

[–] CapnAssHolo 11 points 1 year ago

I'll plunder yer coffer, ye mutinous, squiffy gob! ... Hoist the Jolly Roger!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If companies are so adamant in both raising prices to the point of unaffordability, and making alternate routes to enjoy their art illegal, then what we should collectively do is to just go without them, maybe use that free time and money for something more useful than art.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

According to CNN article, in a recent earnings call Bob Iger indicated that ad-supported streaming is a better revenue stream for them than ad-free subscriptions. So they're apparently raising prices on ad-free subscriptions to get people to drop down to ad-supported.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Some people can't stand advertising and will turn off rather than sit through it. I have been ad blocking and ad skipping for 20 years. I am not going to change my habits. The alternative is piracy. I don't want to go back to piracy. It is a superior product in many ways but it isn't sustainable and I want a fair share of my subscriptions to fund creative jobs (not that that is happening). There are a lot of shows I can't stream or buy digitally here that are only available via the black market which is crazy in 2023 when streaming was supposed to fix this. We have companies taking shows off their services to claim tax writeoffs now at a time when the market is fragmented and overpriced.

The super rich and powerful think we are livestock to lead to slaughter and often they aren't wrong. The sensible thing is for consumers is to walk away (same for X, Facebook, Reddit and all the other time wasters) and let the whole thing burn down and hope that whatever replaces it learns from the mistakes and greed. Unfortunately I don't think enough will to make a difference.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

So piracy is a check on the abuses of the media market?

Interesting!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

just ordered a nice OTA antenna so I can watch my local channels, anything else needed will be purchased for exactly 1 month and then cancelled

I've also started looking at smaller streaming services like CuriosityStream and MagellanTV cause I'm more interested in documentaries and such instead of the latest weekly tv dramas

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›