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.

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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
-2 points
Deleted by creator
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
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
8 points

Streaming is not as expensive as cable. And Uber is a better experience.

permalink
report
reply
97 points

Remember when we could only watch what had recently been on TV and cable companies were trying to lock people in to specific cable boxes that couldn’t skip ads and we paid $120 per month for ad supported content and cable companies would attach random fees and everyone had to buy hundreds of channels to only watch 4?

And we’d build movie and music collections of physical media we had to keep in our homes and cars and we’d listen to the same three albums for months and if we were lucky enough to get a TV series box set, it’d set us back many hundreds of dollars and we’d have to remember which disc we were on and navigate arcane and slow menus?

And when we had questions, we had to find the answers ourselves by reading long form content and just be satisfied that there were many questions we couldn’t answer at all because the information wasn’t available?

Or when we wanted cabs, we’d not know how much a ride would cost until after we got to our destinations and they smelled like rotten farts and were covered in boogers and our only goal was to not touch anything and look out the window because what’s a smartphone?

And when we wanted to go somewhere, we had to ask for directions and use atlases to figure out how to get to the general area of the destination, then drive in circles, accidentally drive past a turn 5 times because the street we were supposed to turn onto had two different names and we had been given the wrong one?

I was there and anyone who pines for the old days can just go there. We have cable and encyclopedias and taxis and atlases. Go nuts.

permalink
report
reply
-5 points

looks like an exaggerated strawman

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

We have all these conveniences now and somehow people are not happier. Maybe the improvements you showed weren’t improvements after all and society should have spent more time to focus on people instead of developing and selling the next great music platform.

You are missing the point when you tell people to go back to cable, encyclopedias etc. because it’s not about those things, it’s about escaping into an idealized past while being depressed in the present. They should have your sympathy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Improvements to technology and improvements to society are vastly different things.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Exactly right! While I think companies like Uber and Netflix did price things like Taxis and Cable out of business unethically, I don’t want to go back to those days. I remember having to try to catch a Taxi and waiting over an hour and a half in the cold. They would ask where I was going and just drive off. Cable was full of scummy tactics and slowly introduced ads until it was just basically paying to watch ads. I don’t want to go back to that shit. But Uber and the like should have been honest about what the pricing structure would have been from the get go.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

The business practices of Uber and Netflix are also unethical but in a different way. Uber pays basically nothing. Netflix as well as streaming pays very little to actors/writers/film crew.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Oh, for sure! Corporate greed exceeds new levels year on year! To think they raise interest rates to curb inflation, but then banks and most other companies are posting record profits without any social return is disgusting.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The term for this is Platform Capitalism

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

But Uber and the like should have been honest about what the pricing structure would have been from the get go.

Pricing structure will be adjusted based on the market conditions. Applies to any company at any time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Not the same situation. They purposely went low to price out the competition for years, accepting losses until the competition hopefully didn’t exist or had everyone semi dependent on them. This is not a supply/demand situation or increase with inflation. This is creating market dependency until you can increase your cost to what you want it to be by obliterating competition.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I remember those days. People were happier then

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I’d say not because of those things but due to overall socioeconomic well-being.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

People socialized more naturally in those days.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

So now we can only what the streaming providers have licensed, and those things which we’ve “purchased” can and do disappear from our devices. And our answers are increasingly becoming hidden behind paywalls that require specific subscriptions & unskippable ads.

“Today” is only better than yesterday due to a recent huge disruption called “the internet” and companies are absolutely scrambling to restore the “bad old days” status quo that you allude to.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

when we wanted cabs, we’d not know how much a ride would cost until after we got to our destinations

Any cab I’ve ever been in had the mileage cost clearly posted in the taxi along with all of the other regulations. And they didn’t change their rates depending on 'busy times of day’band inflate charges 2-5x as much.

they smelled like rotten farts and were covered in boogers and our only goal was to not touch anything and look out the window because what’s a smartphone?

This sounds pretty much like the experience people tell me in any Uber or Lyft, except for the cell phone but you can use your cell phone in a taxi just fine, so I’m not sure why this is even relevant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
56 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

For now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

“Needs” lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

We talk about being able to stop paying things as a service in it’s own right lol.

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
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
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
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
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
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
1 point

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

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
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
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

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