Tech’s broken promises: Streaming is now just as expensive and confusing as cable. Ubers cost as much as taxis. And the cloud is no longer cheap::Some tech is getting pricier and looking a lot like the older services it was supposed to beat. From video streaming to ride-hailing and cloud computing.
Uber was never a tech proposition, it was a predatory disruptor.
The streaming fiasco is sad but inevitable as greed does what greed does.
Cloud was never primarily about price, the big cost save initially was to get rid of purchased or rented iron and locations but the main reason of the Big Switch was the scaleability and opportunities for quick deployment of new technologies and methodologies.
Bullshit this is the fault of “Tech”. Every last greedy tech company, every last penny pinching pig that seeks to maximize profit without any concern for anything, literally anything else. Every last piece of shit corpo pig in govt too
Fuck Ajit Pai , I hope his stupid mug sucks ass
removed by mod
There’s just as much content on the internet as before, and that free and open content continues to grow at a faster rate then it ever did before. They didn’t have anything that the proprietary services of today offer, so there’s no “better days” comparison there.
There’s no finite land on the Internet. You’re just as free to set up your own server today as you were 30 years ago.
You can also set up your own ISP, news conglomerate, microchip factory, global shipping line, and a nuclear plant.
It will take a while to get noticed, but in a few decades you can look forward to being bought up by the monopolies in the respective domains.
deleted by creator
Oh look, technology under capitalism cares about profit, not purpose
Shocked pikachu
Is this surprising? The prices were always going to adjust to the market. Any new cheap thing that undercuts the market will eventually become the market as it becomes mainstream, and prices will be increased to what the market will bear to maximize profits.
No it’s not surprising, we ALL STILL live in the same fucking capitalist nightmare.
Anyone surprised is simply naïve and/or a literal child lol
I think the problem comes in with all the copyright and monopolization bs companies like Verizon and apple pull to remove all possible competition and allow them to jack up their prices
This is surprising from a naive market based perspective. Think about how TVs and computers have gotten cheaper and better. The hope was that this wouldn’t just be the same product with new players. The idea (or the lie if you prefer) was that the new technologies would lead to efficiencies so we can all get more for less.
It just didn’t make any sense for something like Uber. It costs money to give someone a living wage and their app wasn’t going to change the fact that someone still had to drive the car. The whole idea made no sense, which is why they were racing to autonomous cars. That hasn’t panned out.
I actually think streaming is a much better value than cable, even at the same price. Shows are higher quality and more plentiful. Many high quality movies are included. You’re also not required to get every package. Skip Paramount if you don’t want it. I still think streaming easily beats cable.
Exclusive rights to content are the problem here. There is no competition if the consumer has no choice (except not watching at all).
There is a case here for legal separation between content production and distribution. Not just streaming services, it goes for any content, games, cinema, even patents.
Uber on the other hand - I have a problem with their employment rights, not paying people or calling them “contractors” instead of employees.
Otherwise it’s a great positive example of free market in practice. Someone had an idea for a new business model, tried it, it appeared to work for a couple of years, and now they will fail because it doesn’t have a long term perspective. It shook up existing monopolistic practices in the industry, and then tried to establish their own monopoly. And will fail because of that. It goes in circles.
Luckily for me, qBittorent was free before Netflix, during Netflix’s rise, and remains free today.
I use WebTorrent nowadays, since it allows you to stream torrents. But before that, I also used qBittorrent, great application.
Qbit also lets you stream torrents, you just have to ‘download in sequential order’
Oh didn’t know that, thanks!
Sure. But torrents are for files which is different from streaming. And Kodi + Trakt is still far beyond Netflix.
The costs to you with torrents are the relatively small risk you may get sued for a lot of money and/or the cost of covering up your activity with a VPN to make it harder to sue you.
People who were always going to pirate are still always going to pirate. But companies like Netflix know that people will pay for a convenient, legal service with features they like. But if they start charging too much or make their platform suck, people will be more likely to cancel them and pirate.
Well that’s the difference, most people will pirate when it’s more convenient to do so. And as long as prices are so exorbitant.
I pirate hockey games, because watching hockey is ridiculously inconvenient and/or expensive.
I do not pirate music anymore, or video games because Apple Music is more convenient and not very expensive and steam has all the games I’d ever want to play, and has enough sales that it’s not that expensive either.
I don’t pirate movies and tv shows because Netflix and Disney really cover anything I want to watch and anything else I share a crave subscription, like for Game of Thrones
But I do pirate hockey games.
Not where I live - nothing illegal about pirating copyrighted material via torrents, so no fees. Straight up free.
And with a (also free) Jellyfin server, I get the exact same streaming experience.
I mostly paid with time - setting up the entire Jellyfin server. But boy let me tell you, this was way cheaper than Netflix’s current price in my country.
Don’t disagree about your point on convenience though.
The prices were always going to adjust to the market
The prices will always be inflated regardless. The free market is a myth at best, a delusion at worst.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Paramount+ with Showtime costs $12 a month and the live TV part has commercials and a few other shows include “brief promotional interruptions,” according to the company.
The Financial Times recently reported that a basket of the top US streaming services will cost $87 this fall, compared with $73 a year ago.
Some companies, such as Dropbox, have even repatriated most of their IT workloads from the public cloud, saving millions of dollars, the VC firm noted.
Last month, Google, the third-largest cloud provider, started a pilot program where thousands of its employees are limited to using work computers that are not connected to the internet, according to CNBC.
If staff have computers disconnected from the internet, hackers can’t compromise these devices and gain access to sensitive user data and software code, CNBC reported.
Disclosure: Mathias Döpfner, CEO of Business Insider’s parent company, Axel Springer, is a Netflix board member.
The original article contains 877 words, the summary contains 150 words. Saved 83%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Who’s a good little bot?
Looks like the bot got an update!
But I can binge streaming services and then cancel without multiple hundred dollar fees. And I can use the same app for Uber no matter what city I’m in.
So… I get things aren’t paradise but let’s be clear they’re still largely covering a lot of folks needs.
Moreover, not to take sides with Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Dropbox, Box, etc, but storing files costs money to maintain (there needs to be redundancy, every once in a while drives need to be replaced, they need to be cooled, etc), so we’d like it to be cheap, but doing all these things cannot be free for the hosting company.
This is not to say they are jacking up prices, but that it cannot stay super cheap forever.
Still, these services have been very handy so far, though I’m looking to see if the plan I have is still convenient compared to the competition
Seems to me like it would be more sustainable if it was super cheap for a large common library so a large userbase would maintain a continuous subscription, supporting a large continuous revenue, rather than signing-up and quitting intermittently.
The media companies are ruining it for themselves by trying to squeeze more out of the users, which leads them not to stick with any of them.
Seems to me like it would be more sustainable if it was super cheap for a large common library so a large userbase would maintain a continuous subscription, supporting a large continuous revenue, rather than signing-up and quitting intermittently.
Excuse me, but how would a tiny percentage of people profit off of this?! What is even the point if there are no shareholders to demand record profits year after year? /s
I still believe there’s a huge markup though. Look at premium Usenet providers - they store something like 1200 days of the posts (minus DMCA takedowns) which I think run something like hundreds of petabytes of data. Yet they can provide the service, including transfer, for what has to be a niche market at rates around $10 a month. Presumably there’s no “magic” or subsidies in what they’re doing. Yet what they’re doing is essentially what a big streaming service is doing.
Now you might say - well, yea, $10 a month - right around streaming prices. Sure, but you figure in the larger scale to spread the costs over. For Box etc, they’re not even having the content costs that a Netflix would have (which I’ll admit is a lot, and might well make up for the difference between just storage and transfer of Usenet) which makes them comparable in some sense.
Even if you say that well, Usenet gets multiple companies cooperating in their competition and storing the same data so they get some redundancy for “free”, compare to backup providers like Backblaze at $7 a month for unlimited storage (unless you’re on Linux, then f**k you, so I don’t use them, but still). Or Jottacloud that runs around $100 a year for 5TB soft cap 10TB hard cap.
I still think there’s a mix of a lot of markup, and people not actually looking much into competition - I know people who don’t cross compare.
“Needs” lol
For now.
We talk about being able to stop paying things as a service in it’s own right lol.
Yarrrrr…shiver me timbers. Fly the Jolly Roger high matey, there be booty ta plunder!
Main reason I’m in the works of a nas myself.
After a long break from the seas, returning after close to 8 years, pirate life has really improved.
Synology + dockers + automation tools = the experience that streaming should have been
I love this response. 😀
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
Pirating taxis?
I think that’s just called robbery, but taxi pirate does have a nice ring to it.
You wouldn’t download a taxi
Yes. Yes I would.
A fake taxi like they say.
Has “cloud computing” ever been cheaper for most kinds of established businesses? Other than for some specific workflows, or very unpredictable workloads, the only cost-saving I’ve ever seen is avoiding the initial costs and avoiding the need for a real ops/obs team.
And easy scaling options.
Yep, that’s what I meant by “unpredictable workloads”.
As someone who does DevOps for a living, The scaling options are really what make cloud semi-affordable and useful for enterprises. Not to mention the “I don’t have to waste engineers doing menial upkeep” (aka, managed services means there’s a good amount of “not my problem”). The other part that’s a huge savings is being able to use things like terraform or pulumi to quickly deploy, destroy and redeploy for test environments and dr.
I can completely redeploy an enterprise scale website in hours, code and data deployments included.
Things are crazy busy because you ran a sale or ad during the superbowl, scale it all up in seconds. Want to test something or run a dev environment that people don’t use regularly? Only spin it up when they need it.
We power down all dev and test environments every night and weekend. Some only spin up on demand. Saves tons on capital and nominal run rate.
Initial and operational costs are huge if you are a small company of ~20 people. At least in this case the promise of cloud is achieved - bringing the economies of scale down to individuals and small companies.
Sure if you have 10k employees it makes no sense, you have enough resources for these same economies of scale to be possible inside your company.
You don’t even need 10k employees, I see it make sense with ~450 employees if you also have a decent IT team and funding. The issue is most companies can’t see the need to keep things they own up to date - there’s always a temptation to “just put it off a year” to make the budgets look better, till they hit near catastrophe with being 5+ years beyond reasonable. The cloud “forces” them to put in update, maintenance, employee overhead etc up front and forever. They just pay a premium for that service IMO.
I used to think it was kind of stupid, but then I realized - companies hire consultants at exorbitant rates to help them do things they don’t have the in house skills for - so really - building that into the overall cost might still be a wash. The expensive part of Cloud IMO turns out to be needing training, consultants or new employees with different skills to manage it, which all charge more than traditional on prem because cloud is still the current ?fad?. And the unseen costs of screw ups by the cloud provider themselves losing data, being down, or having a security breach that affects you - and you’re completely out of the picture with remediation or even knowing what might be a risk.
I can tell you at the enterprise level, Cloud services were absolutely pushed as a cost savings measure. All the math in the world can’t save you from a determined C-suite, however.
We just finished our migration to the Cloud after 3 long years of effort, and while we are saving about ~2MM/mo in data center costs, our opex spend is up by around 2.5MM/mo YoY, not including all the Cloud-centric new hires.
Are you saying they already (over)spent in unrelated opex areas the savings from going to the cloud? I’m unclear if you’re saying it’s a consequence of the move to the cloud.
Our run rate is roughly 2.5MM more per month than what we were spending to operate two whole-ass data centers.
Hope that clarifies it a bit.
i.e. touching grass is more attractive by the day
deleted by creator
It’s a nice idea but not possible for everyone. I tried with a Synology NAS but gave up since I do not have a huge living space and any mechanical device with fans and hard drives is just annoyingly loud to me. I want a silent home and that thing was very far from silent even at optimal settings. A 64 bit 8-16 GB RAM device running TrueNAS will also not be silent unless I spent a fortune.
Then comes the price for electricity. I don’t know where you live but where I am it is extremely expensive and prices will continue to rise.
Then there is networking skills. Do I want to expose my home IP and my most private personal data to the internet from home? It might be doable in a somewhat safe way but … not doing it will always be safer. And the time spent setting it up (and constant safety worries) is not negligible.
So I faced reality and sold my NAS. All in all to me it’s better to stay 100% offline with my data and backups (like I do now) or spend the money on some proper E2E cloud service.
I live in an RV. I’m having no problems running a small server aside from 5g internet and CGNAT.
Let’s be real: Uber/Lyft is actually better than calling a cab. Even for the same price, it’s more convenient. When you actually share the cab, it’s more efficient too, you get a price cut while it optimizes the route automatically to pick up and drop off people.
I have a cab company in my city (near Chicago) that you can order it online or in the app for now or in the future and it is cheaper than Lyft/Uber. No hailing a cab like back in the old days.
That probably wouldn’t be an option if they weren’t forced to compete with companies like Uber. Traditional taxi services were infamous for shitty customer service.
The problem IMHO is just that you need a different app for each cities cab companies. That’s great if you were living in that city and regularly taking cabs. I don’t know what the percentage is, but at least for me, I only take cabs when I’m travelling, otherwise I drive my own car. I like having one or two apps, and I don’t have to find, sign up for, and configure an app for each city I go to.
Note - this is actually a bigger issue, not one that the cab companies can necessarily fix - but I think PayPal is doing the best here in having a “checkout with PayPal” on random websites and I don’t have to do anything but log into paypal. I’m still surprised it seems like no one else is really doing it. I’ve very occasionally seen Pay on Amazon, but I don’t recall if in those cases I still needed to create an account on the website etc unlike the newer offering from PayPal.
Where’s American Express, Visa, Mastercard, Zelle, Venmo, Cashapp, etc or even another new offering that just makes it as easy as PayPal does to have your “Pay online / in the app” account that if you do it gives the seller the payment (without exposing your actual card number), and address if needed for shipping?
The problem IMHO is just that you need a different app for each cities cab companies.
You’re on Lemmy. Federate.
Last time I called a cab I was charged $20 to come to my house and pick me up. After that it was another charge to go where I needed. That’s a cost you don’t need to pay if you’re just hailing a cab in the city.
Techno feudalism is the keyword.
Platform capitalism.
This has nothing to do with tech and EVERYTHING to do with FUCKING CAPITALISM.
What a dumb fucking post, tech didn’t promise us shit were still living in a capitalist nightmare where quarterly earnings are far and above the primary value, over any and all people.
What the fuck is this waaaa tech didn’t usher in an age of utopia!!! It’s almost like we have to solve other problems first. Fucks sake
I’m not usually one for an ad hominem, but it’s business insider—that’s probably one conclusion they are incapable of arriving at
Not incapable, unwilling.
Technology has and will always be awesome…… unless it’s in a society that is structured in an inherently exploitative way.
Did you mean exploitative?
Yup thanks!
Can we actually have a discussion on what’s at hand here instead of knee jerk reactions?
Perhaps you had to have been there for all the “building better worlds” and “bringing people together” horseshit every silicon valley company was spewing since the dot com boom in the 2000’s
It’s not an actual promise so don’t act pedantic. The point is- society was sold these concepts and ideas as solutions to existing problems, and they’ve instead become bigger and more expensive problems.
deleted by creator
Honestly, not to blame the public, but people were sitting here for the last decade going, don’t like being censored? Don’t use Google/Facebook/whatever. Don’t like being tracked across the internet? Don’t use Google/Facebook/whatever. And everyone kept using it. As for streaming services, I mean, if you don’t want monopolistic pricing power, abolish copyright/DMCA. We complain constantly about the consequences of these big corps but society keeps religiously buying shit from them or participating in their services. Just like complaining constantly about global warming but driving your car 3 miles to the store to get a 1L bottle of water. We set up these structures and put people in these positions where they can exploit you, then act surprised when they do, and we have an excuse for why we think every individual part of it needs to stay exactly the same.
OK, maybe to blame the public a little.
abolish copyright
17 years is enough.
They were/are solutions to some of the problems though. Uber makes it way easier and convenient to get a ride which also helped lower the amount of drunk driving happening. Streaming made it was more convenient to watch what i want to watch when i want to watch it and without ads.
The real solution would be for public infrastructure like subways, busses, etc so we dont need privatized solutions that start cheap and then ramp up the prices when we’re hooked. And we could have had films/series that get funded directly by the viewers without middlemen so for a cheaper price we can enjoy the art and have the money go directly to the artists but we instead we got different middlemen
Cheaper has never been a promise of big tech. Better, personalized, more convenient, flexible, faster. Cheaper? I missed the promise where we’d get all these benefits for nothing, and in fact be given discounts for getting all these benefits.
Before anyone starts: yes Uber is better than a taxi. Yes, cloud computing is better than on-premises. I’m so sad for this author who can’t work their streaming services, but as bad as cable? Give me a break.
Yea cable sucked way more, atleast we aren’t locked into contracts with these services. Subscribe for a month watch the last years entire catalog and unsubscribe, rinse and repeat. You don’t need every subscription to be always active.
Yyyyep. The way they package channels is so irritating. And the advertising load you get with cable TV is intolerable to me. My parents are conditioned to it after decades but it drives me insane fast.
That’s why I just bittorrent the fuck out of everything. I’ll never play the game.
For now. Long term contracts are coming to streaming
Haha good luck with forcing people into a contract when you got like 2 shows airing at any given time. If they want a contract the content has to explode by atleast 4 fold
Yeah, but they said those things before going public or when a few people had the vast majority of shares.
If they cash out, there’s now a board in control, and the big investors want big returns. So that’s the direction companies inevitably go.
Because if capitalism.
It might be the same company, but it’s often not the same people calling the shots
I guess the thing where tech is relevant is that regulations thought it was different, so they didn’t apply the rules against dumping and other illegal tactics (“because they’re a start-up, it’s different when they lose money year over year”).
“Tech” doesn’t exist. Entire concept is a lie propagated by companies trying to appear like something different.
Not a tech company - a taxi company, a short term rental company, a video distribution company …Look at what they sell, not what tools they use to do it.
Uber isn’t a taxi company. They don’t own a fleet. They’re a company that makes an app.
Um, not sure where you live but in most cities I know taxi companies don’t own the fleet
“the cloud isn’t tech it’s a rental company” is a pretty dumb take tbh.
Like, if you’re trying to argue that AWS (or gcp, azure) services don’t provide technical solutions that aren’t available otherwise you just don’t know what you’re talking about. Is it expensive, yeah it definitely can be. But cloud is much more than server rentals at this point. Want a host that gives you bare metal? Great there are ‘rentals’ to choose from. I can see arguing SaaS hasn’t really ‘tech’, but PasS and IaaS provide technology and solutions to problems. I hate Daddy Jeff as much as the next guy but AWS is very much ‘tech’.
I could buy a server and run AD. I can rent a cloud server and run AD. In that way, you’re correct.
But what I want to do is buy a local server and run AAD. They won’t let me. Their cloud solutions are an artificial limitation to force us to rent servers rather than license software. It’s another form of vendor lockin.
You know how to fix air conditioning? How about program an alarm system? These are side services a storage company provides their clients to enhance their main product. If uber is a taxi company and Netflix is just Blockbuster 2.0, the cloud is just a big Westies in the sky.
The cloud is just data server farms with fancy marketing. Shut your pie hole.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Agree, it’s 100% greed for investors’ money. But it’s way easier to get away with lying in tech than in most other industries.
It’s not even that; those services were subsidized by investors money on this idea that once you get a user base, you can then capitalize on the user base.
Those promises were made at a loss which later had to become a profit. It’s like Discord, there’s no way hosting literal hundreds of thousands of servers for free and killing all the competition can and will continue indefinitely. I wouldn’t be surprised if their monetization gets even more aggressive because transmitting all of that audio and video is not cheap.
That’s not even a “capitalism” thing, that’s just a “someone’s got to do the work thing” and the majority of gamers went “yup that somebody can not be free!” And what always happens does, the existing solutions lost tons of revenue and became increasingly stagnant because they can’t compete with “free”.
That’s why I’ve started paying for stuff (even when there’s a “free” option or paying more for domestically produced goods – even when there’s a “cheaper” option). Cheap isn’t cheap when it comes to manufactured goods (i.e., cheap imported junk), and free isn’t free when it comes to online services. Ultimately, somebody’s gotta make “free” happen (even if it’s a government, and then that really means the tax payer).
The race to the bottom only exists because that’s what people vote for with their wallets. If it wasn’t rewarded with sales, it wouldn’t happen.
Yeah, but “SoCiaLisM”
Capitalism would never allow utopia to come about, because the concept of utopia doesn’t allow for an unequal distribution of goods. The inequality is very much a feature, not a bug.
