this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
955 points (94.1% liked)
Technology
60067 readers
3761 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'd be willing to allocate $100 a month for life, if I could watch all content I want instantly. Instead they all scrambled to create multiple competing services with different UI's, and often none of them even host the shit I want to watch, completely remove, or replace originals with modified "rewritten history" versions anyway.
Instead they get nothing from me and I sail the high seas, paying the same amount of money to computer hardware manufacturers and other internet services. If the majority did the same, they'd change their business models, but consumers are idiots.
Having everything you want in one place isn't a monopoly unless everything you want is only in one place.
Streaming is on-demand TV sans ads, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there.
You might have had that in the US, but in my country there has always been protections against monopolies in the TV industry and therefore we had (still have) several competing networks, some paid, some free with ads, all about the same size, and 99% of content was exclusive to one network. A few shows would be available on two but not many.
It wasn't too bad, because there was enough free/ad supported content that paying to get a little bit more was a luxury which could easily be avoided. And it was closer to $50/month (US) to have everything here
With the new generation more content than ever is locked behind a paywall there are so many services if you wanted everything you'd pay far more than $100. I think I have 20+ streaming services on my TV. Nearly all of them (including Netflix) don't have an active subscription.
You're projecting an American perspective, but I suspect you're talking to an Australian.
Cable in Australia has always been considerably more expensive than in the USA, and includes considerably less content. Except for movies, it was also never available adfree. It was changing in the last 5 years when I left the country, but it wasn't even close to competing with the likes of Netflix on price or service and I don't think there was any ad free option (despite the dramatically higher cost to consumer) - there was a whole media oligarch conspiracy to sink the national broadband upgrade because they knew they had the market cornered with their monopoly and streaming would disrupt that.
No - what they're asking for is how it already works with music streaming services. Where there's no monopoly.
You can choose basically any streaming service and you get basically every recording ever published.
The ad supported bullshit: isn't this the majority of new subs for netflix and those companies who have ad supported tiers?