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.

  • jhulten@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    421
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • cerevant@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      208
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

          • _wintermute@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            A healthy dose of western/capitalist propaganda since birth and until death helps a lot. So many people under the illusion that this is the natural progression of civilization, or the best.

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Intralexical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      “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.

  • Fades@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    340
    arrow-down
    41
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • Deftdrummer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      94
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • dx1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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

          • scarabic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

      • Nix@merv.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • Illegal_Prime@dmv.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          As do all the airlines.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

    • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “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.

      • sudo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        “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’.

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • notatoad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          but what isn’t tech, then?

          yeah, AWS is tech. but the garage down the street is also selling technology. the landscaping company will sell me a cloud-connected sprinker system, are they a tech business?

          “tech” is an investment term to refer to businesses that develop technology that has the potential to turn into huge, currently unknowable growth. tech is a good investment because it’s so far ahead of the curve that we don’t even know how it will grow yet. if you’re selling things that are generally well understood and will scale and grow in a predictable fashion, you’re not a tech business. you’re a service business.

        • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • Neve8028@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

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

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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”).

    • ssboomman@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

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

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    120
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • MrSqueezles@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ThickQuiveringTip@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • golamas1999@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • severien@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • glasgitarrewelt@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • EssentialCoffee@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • malloc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Take video streaming. In search of better profitability, Netflix, Disney, and other providers have been raising prices

    Piracy and buying/ripping physical media is back on the table bois. Been running my own personal media server secured with a VPN to access it. Costs are the symmetric gigabit connection, a simple raspberry pi for WireGuard, and old computer for media server. Plus some technical knowledge.

    Any physical media I have has been ripped to digital form (4K where possible).

    A 3-mile Uber ride that cost $51.69

    Yet another reason why we need to have more diverse options in transportation. Public transportation is dismal in the USA due to suburban sprawl and car centric society. Alternative forms of transportation such as bikes or even walking is not accessible to a large portion of people.

    Took a bus the other day and the total cost for 24 hrs was exactly $2.50. Don’t have to worry about psychos on the road driving to and from their deadass suburban home and deadend job.

    Cloud promises are being broken

    Fuck the “cloud”. It’s just another persons/companies server. Switched off major cloud platforms long ago.

    Have off site backups take place nightly. No middleman scanning my stuff. No more upselling. Besides ISP costs, everything else is static or one time setup.

    • JGrffn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I’m already automating my entire Plex configuration, got some friends as admins on my services to help me run it, and I’m sharing it with all my friends through secure connections with let’s encrypt. There’s no reason to keep giving massive companies our money, data, and freedom. Fuck the cloud, fuck these subscription services, fuck SaaS, fuck it all. It’s piracy all the way down from now on.

  • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Mysterious_old_man@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

    • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

    • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tech never promised anything. They cut the price for people to be dependent to them and then rise the price.

    It’s just basic capitalism.

    • Gelcube69@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It really is crazy that you can have venture capitalists operate at a loss for a decade just to change the entire infrastructure of society to be dependent on them in the future. Really undermines any kind of microeconomic common sense that is supposedly the basis of capitalism.

  • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    1 year ago

    We should have seen this coming. I remember the early 80s when cable was the new hotness, and it was cheap, with no ads unlike broadcast television. That was its major selling point.

    Then over the next decade the ads crept in, and we were all paying for cable with ads, even though the whole point had been no ads. Then the price skyrocketed and the ads remained.

    Steaming was always going to follow the same path. Cheap with no ads at first, then adding ads, then skyrocketing prices, then crazy prices with ads too.

    They know as long as all of them raise their prices, where are we gonna go? They have exclusives. We can’t just take our money elsewhere.

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s surprising to me is that anyone didn’t see this coming. The ideal of online streaming being cheaper and better was very alive and well when Netflix was the only streaming service. However, I started to note that some content from specific copyright holders started getting removed from Netflix and from that single indicator, I saw this happening…

      I could almost see them gearing up to launch their Netflix competition service which would be analogous to channel “packages” on cable. You get the Netflix package for x, y, and z shows, the $studioG package for shows a, b, and c, etc etc. Creating the exact problem that we’re trying to eliminate with going to streaming. From that moment, I committed myself to sail the seven seas and download all my own Linux ISOs. It seemed like everyone else couldn’t see what I saw, and nobody cared. Then it happened… HBO, Hulu, Prime video, Paramount+, Disney+, etc, all came out of the woodworks, and now this.

      My argument is that the MPAA needs to learn the same lesson that the RIAA did after the Napster lawsuits. Some people who were “sued” by the RIAA actually fought back. Most couldn’t because they didn’t have the money to pay for a drawn out legal battle, so they settled, but a few brave souls fought back… The story is long but it’s clear to me that the RIAA learned a very important lesson: it’s not profitable to sue everyone who pirates their content; and if you look at the music industry now, there’s very little piracy, and almost everyone has a music subscription service, whether Spotify, Apple music, tidal, YouTube music, or something else. Anyone without a subscription generally suffers through ads, with very little difference between which service you use (at least, regarding what’s available), or how you use it… There’s still people pirating the music (far fewer than in the days of Napster), and still people buying physical media, but long term, they’re safe from going under from P2P sharing. The vast majority of consumers are paying for the content either through ads or subscription and all music is available on all services.

      The MPAA is still hard headed about all of this. Disney is trying to fix the problem by buying everything up, so other studios are forced to have their work on D+, because the big D bought them… I’d argue that Disney is doing a better job at squashing video media piracy than the MPAA… The problem right now is that the various video streaming services are all run by the studios that publish the content on them. A truly third party streaming service (that is not also a competing studio) is needed, who can license content from everyone… Most won’t license their content to a third party service because it’s not as profitable compared to running their own service… So we’re stuck. If the MPAA stepped in and made such a service, and not-so-politely asked the various studios to license their content to it, then made it affordable, I would hang up my black hat and skull flag and never look back.

      The chances of this happening are so small that I’ll just go ahead and order a new flag… My current one has been flying for so long it’s looking a bit sun-bleached.

      I have zero hope or expectation of this happening, and bluntly, if it did, whether we admit it or not, I think most of us would hang up our hats and relent, because it’s far easier to simply pay a (reasonable) monthly fee than to do all the crap associated with getting it another way. They won’t, so yo-ho-ho.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s economics 101, prices will rise to what the market will bare… Unfortunately the market is irrational and has access to credit cards.

    • ParikramaWasi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      As long as current economic/cultural model exists, there is no escape from advertisements. Consumerism can’t thrive without advertisements and any technology that gets mass adopted is perfect venue for that.

      Today, its only entertainment platforms which are infected with this bug, tomorrow it’ll be your car, fridge and anything which needs internet connection(almost every home appliances).

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        None of those things need Internet access. They are doing this so that you’ll own nothing. Cars are a good example here. Why in the world would they introduce heated seats that are subscription based? Because they don’t want to sell you or me a car anymore. They are looking forward to self driving autos, and intend to sell fleets to cities and corporations. You and I will rent the cars much like a cab, but now the manufacturer can still make money charging $1 to roll down the windows, $5 for the radio, $7 for A/C, etc…

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly, yes it has been. It’s not too bad, but it used to be easier.

      • rx8geek@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would argue it’s easier just in significantly different ways - the Arr stack of applications take more effort to learn and setup initially, but once you have it’s absolutely effortless.

        • scorpiosrevenge@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Literally everything was easy about it 5-10 years ago. Even 20yrs ago starting with Napster. Shit was the wild west you could pretty much do whatever you want. Apart from the various rogue virus laden crap. Torrent trackers got good about reporting bad ones though.

          • fulano@lemmy.eco.br
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            In addition, pirated physical media used to be an easy way for non techy people to acquire media in developing countries.

            • logen@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Used to be? As late as 2011 I saw entire businesses dedicated to selling pirated movies.

    • scorpiosrevenge@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not sure how it’s easier I can’t get near a torrent site without getting dumb letters from ISP. "get a VPN… "

      OK. Well that’s not easier than ever, is it lol.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The tricky part is making sure your VPN is set up correctly and verifying that your torrent client doesn’t try to fall back on using your unmasked IP if the VPN connection goes down.

      • evranch@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Use Mullvad, $5/month prepaid and you can even mail them cash if you have no other way to pay. No subscription or other scammy stuff. Your entire login is a single auto-generated number, and if you use their app (Open source, 3rd party audited) you just punch it in and boom, VPN time.

        I think from signup to using the service was under 5 minutes!

        For the power users you can log in on their site and generate Wireguard keys, which you can use with Docker to wrap up all your piracy stuff inside a container that can only access the VPN connection for safety and convenience. But you don’t have to do that, you can just run the app and put everything through the tunnel when you’re downloading.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’ve gotten dumb angry letters since from ISPs since Napster.

        But I’m hard pressed to remember a time when so much content was so readily available so quickly.

        And a $4/mo Proton VPN is downright trivial when the cost of a good laptop has fallen from the $1000s to the low $100s.

  • Savaran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The thing about unregulated capitalism is it will always fuck over society in favour of sociopaths. Unregulated capitalism rewards sociopaths because it focusses on profits above all else – shareholders get stupidly rich only if they don’t care about the damage done to workers and the public, sociopaths who don’t care about such damage can promise the highest profits, and that’s rewarded by a hyper-focus on the bottom line.

    Unregulated capitalism rewards ruthless cost-cutting, treating people like robotic assets, slash-and-burn corporate policies, and a culture of near-slavery.

    Adding new tech only makes inhumane policies easier to implement. It’s why people like Musk have more money than they could spend in a thousand lifetimes. When the goal is to maximise profits at all costs, of course the consumer will get fucked. That’s rather the point.

    E: in short, prices will continue to increase as these people try to find the ceiling. Ps: there is no real ceiling.

    • logen@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, I don’t know about that. I think Musk as a unique ability to spend money.

  • RedEye FlightControl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is all by design. Once they have you/us/them captured again, we’re going to take another trip around the “raise prices and squeeze services until it’s unsustainable, because shareholder and CEO profit”. It has all happened before and it will all happen again.

    The cloud is just someone else’s computer. The uber is just someone else’s car. Streaming is just someone else’s media library. They have you right where they want you, dependent on them.

    • IDontHavePantsOn@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      It starts out as $1.99 but everyone forgets that as life goes on they take more pictures and videos and have to keep upgrading cloud sevices to keep their memories intact.

      • severien@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Google provides a feature to compress the photos, it’s reeeally difficult to see a difference from the original. That saves a lot of space. It’s a good practice to delete blurry/repetitive pictures. With that, 100 GBs can last a long time.

        It’s a bigger problem with videos where higher bitrate/resolution make a difference and they consume a lot of storage.

      • eeeeyayyyy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        keep their memories intact

        Most social media users are struggling to export their 500+GB of data. Too bad for their memories got owned by corporates.

    • Maslo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I probably first got the weird idea when I signed up for Gmail and they made a whole show and dance about how your storage space just continually increases. The little storage space ticker was animated to the point of annoyance.

      Today Google just annoys me with alerts that I’m 90% full and better give them money or else.

  • mailerdaemon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t use Uber because it is cheaper, I use it because I know the fare ahead of time, I don’t need to dial a dozen different cab companies, and the vehicles are generally nicer. I don’t use streaming because it is cheaper, I use it because I don’t need to worry about time shifting, and can access much higher quality content than on cable. As for the cloud? You can pry my big iron from my cold, dead hands.

    • Th0rgue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Exactly. Its not the money. Streaming is ‘messed up’ because content producers all want to own their own ‘exclusive’ platform. Had goverments regulated the market so that content could not be exclusive to a platform (like they did with movie theaters), streaming would be fine.

    • Not A Bird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Very good counter arguments. I hate how the headline just lumps in cloud with streaming/ uber in value. Shows the naiveity of the author.

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In Czechia they simply made an app any Taxi guy can sign up to, Liftago, you input your destination and you get offers from Taxis in the area.

      Taxis have more regulation regarding their cars (being well maintained) than Uber drivers so it’s safer, and because capitalism you get naturally low prices due to competition.

      just a much better system than Uber.

      Uber is also banned in a lot of places as they are basically Taxis sidestepping the regulations