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.

564 points

You say “broken promises” I say “the plan all along” and “bait and switch”.

permalink
report
reply
263 points

Yep. The business model has always been “Lure them in and stifle competition with a low initial cost. Then when we have the market we can jack up the price.” Enshitification at its best.

permalink
report
parent
reply
141 points

This is just capitalism at work. Capitalism = enshitification, exploitation, and destruction.

permalink
report
parent
reply
65 points

Literally working as intended. Not sure why it takes people so long to figure this out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Capitalism without any regulation*

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Also known as the Wal-Mart business model.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

A lot of these things were proudly unprofitable, which is basically their way of getting around anti-trust violations. If they had a revenue stream to make the business profitable (outside of investors handing them more cash) then they’d be hit with anti-trust lawsuits for offering services at a loss in order to drive the competition out of business. But instead they just convince investors to hang on long enough to achieve the same goal, then raise their prices when they’ve got too much power to fail.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

“Rent seeking” has a nice ring to it in this case, I think. The previous situation was fine, except for not being profitable enough for the right people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Capitalism is just one big con, and you have no alternative but to play along.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah it’s called capitalism

permalink
report
parent
reply
357 points

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

permalink
report
reply
89 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

abolish copyright

17 years is enough.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Friendly reminder that Uber makes use of public infrastructure to do its thing.

As do all the airlines.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
49 points
*

“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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

“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’.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Uber isn’t a taxi company. They don’t own a fleet. They’re a company that makes an app.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Um, not sure where you live but in most cities I know taxi companies don’t own the fleet

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Not incapable, unwilling.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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”).

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Technology has and will always be awesome…… unless it’s in a society that is structured in an inherently exploitative way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Did you mean exploitative?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yup thanks!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Well, you’re right that the bigger issue is people expecting tech to solve social problems created by social structure. But Yes, tech is absolutely failing at this. How could it not?

Why not instead take this show of contempt for tech as another chance for people to recognize the underlying issue, not as a threat to the future of tech developments.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
148 points

Yarrrrr…shiver me timbers. Fly the Jolly Roger high matey, there be booty ta plunder!

permalink
report
reply
28 points

Main reason I’m in the works of a nas myself.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Pirating taxis?

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Yes. Yes I would.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I think that’s just called robbery, but taxi pirate does have a nice ring to it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I love this response. 😀

permalink
report
parent
reply
137 points

Don’t blame tech, blame the bait-and-switch business model of loss leading products.

Uber never made money because they chose to undercut prices of all competitors and bleed them out.

I’d argue that newer streaming companies (those founded by studios, such as Disney +) did the same thing by roping in customers before jacking up prices.

It may be the “fault” of capitalism, but consider it was capitalism that birthed streaming in the first place. In the long term, the expectation would be a better solution will surface in reference to streaming… the same way streaming was a solution to cable. Thus is the business cycle.

permalink
report
reply
22 points

the expectation would be a better solution will surface in reference to streaming… the same way streaming was a solution to cable.

What would that look like though? The current streaming model was pretty easy to predict ~15 years ago with the advent of online video streaming in general, especially mainstream forms of it such as YouTube. I have a hard time imagining how any other business model for distributing video content would look like, but then again I don’t have a very entrepreneurial mind.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

If you had the answer you could make a lot of money

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

The answer was already found with music streaming. Whether you’re using Spotify, Apple Music, or YouTube whatever, you’re still getting 99% of the same content. These companies compete on price and features not on content.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

You had me until that utterly stupid drivel at the end. You cannot give credit to the system that happened to be in charge at the time…

Then you’d have to thank Monarchy for a billion things that weren’t invented by monarchs…

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

You’re confusing economic systems with systems of government.

I’m interested to hear how you explain the drive to create streaming as an option to cable without including tenets of a market driven economy.

Reddit/Lemmy/Etc really has a hard-on to blame all bad things on capitalism. Capitalism is amoral. It is cold and uncaring. But not recognizing it as a driving factor for growth, innovation and societal advancement is a path of willful ignorance.

Everything has pros and cons in life.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Remember that every invention discovered and improvement made before capitalism, happened before capitalism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Remember that even in a system in which workers own companies, those workers still want to make more money

A profit motive is not unique to nor a product of capitalism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Not making any profit does not imply running for losses.

Many companies can run for minimal margins, ensuring they can pay staff, stock and services.

Profit is what is left on the table after every expense is paid, including salaries, which usually doesn’t reach the workers pockets.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Those workers still want to live. The money is the means- controlled by those with the most money.

Capitalism and democracy as exclusive concepts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You act like capitalism is something that was invented. Market economies have existed since the dawn of time.

Think of it more like a spectrum where free market and unregulated capitalism is on one end and economies under total state control are at the other.

There is clear evidence that one side of that spectrum favors innovation more than the other.

I guess you could argue that one end of the spectrum is more “moral” than the other, but I would counter that the opposite end is amoral rather than immoral.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
  1. You mean capitalism is inherent in the matrix of the space-time continuum as opposed to invented?

  2. Market economies have not all been capitalistic.

  3. Innovation is not the singular motivation of mankind. Survival, comfort, stability, peace, equality are more important.

  4. An amoral society is no better than an immoral society.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Also worth noting in the case of uber, even if price is equal with taxis, the experience is much better. Nicer cars, better drivers and much easier app use. Even at price parity, its a very superior product in most cases.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Other than the ease of app use I wouldn’t say any of these are accurate anymore. I’ve been in plenty of hoopties using Uber, dealt with drivers juggling different apps at once and literally driving past me with some other customer in the car on the way to their destination (while Uber app shows you your driver is arriving), and had plenty of awful drivers take me places. I think this was true in the beginning but once the facade came down and people realized they aren’t really making any money, Uber lowered their standards and took what they can get.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

I always thought [dumping](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy\)) was illegal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

FTC has been asleep at the wheel for 50 years

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Uber never made money because they chose to undercut prices of all competitors and bleed them out.

I think that is only the first part of it. Uber invested a ton of money in autonomous vehicles. I think they were originally betting that they would undercut prices, bleed out competitors, and then be the only one who has the capital to deploy fleets of driverless vehicles.

We are still far from having driverless vehicles and I think investors are realizing that so Uber upped their prices and lowered their pay. There is nothing revolutionary about them. They implemented a good tracking system and the ability for drivers to more easily figure out which rides would be best. They do not have that advantage anymore since taxi companies now largely have the exact same tech but without the massive overhead that Uber has.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

A better solution already exists. It’s the arr stack.

permalink
report
parent
reply
107 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
80 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

I use WebTorrent nowadays, since it allows you to stream torrents. But before that, I also used qBittorrent, great application.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Qbit also lets you stream torrents, you just have to ‘download in sequential order’.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

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


Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 568K

    Comments