Sooner or later, everything old is new again.
We may be at this point in tech, where supposedly revolutionary products are becoming eerily similar to the previous offerings they were supposed to beat.
Take video streaming. In search of better profitability, Netflix, Disney, and other providers have been raising prices. The various bundles are now as annoyingly confusing as cable, and cost basically the same. Somehow, we’re also paying to watch ads. How did that happen?
Amazon Prime Video costs $9 a month and there are no ads. Oh, except when Thursday Night Football is on. Then there are loads of ads. And Amazon is discussing an ad-supported version of the Prime Video service, according to The Wall Street Journal. That won’t be free, I can assure you.
Paramount+ with Showtime costs $12 a month and the live TV part has commercials and a few other shows include “brief promotional interruptions,” according to the company. Translation: ads.
Streaming was supposed to be better and cheaper. I’m not sure that’s the case anymore. This NFL season, like previous years, I will record games on OTA linear TV using a TiVo box from about 2014. I’ll watch hours of action every weekend for free and I’ll watch no ads. Streaming can’t match that.
You can still stream without ads, but the cost of this is getting so high, and the bundling is so complex, that it’s getting as bad as cable — the technology that streaming was supposed to radically improve upon.
The Financial Times recently reported that a basket of the top US streaming services will cost $87 this fall, compared with $73 a year ago. The average cable TV package costs $83 a month, it noted. A 3-mile Uber ride that cost $51.69
A similar shift is happening in ride-hailing. Uber has been on a quest to become profitable, and it achieved that, based on one measure, in the most-recent quarter. Lyft is desperately trying to keep up. How are they doing this? Raising prices is one way.
Wired’s editor at large, Steven Levy, recently took a 2.95-mile Uber ride from downtown New York City to the West Side to meet Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. When asked to estimate the cost of the ride, Khosrowshahi put it at $20. That turned out to be less than half the actual price of $51.69, including a tip for the driver.
“Oh my God. Wow,” the CEO said upon learning the cost.
I recently took a Lyft from Seattle-Tacoma International airport to a home in the city. It cost $66.69 with driver tip. As a test, I ordered a taxi for the return journey. Exact same distance, and the cab was stuck in traffic longer. The cost was $70 with a tip. So basically the same.
And the cab can be ordered with an app now that shows its location, just like Uber and Lyft. So what’s the revolutionary benefit here? The original vision was car sharing where anyone could pick anyone else up. Those disruptive benefits have steadily ebbed away through regulation, disputes with drivers over pay, and the recent push for profitability. Cloud promises are being broken
Finally, there’s the cloud, which promised cheaper and more secure computing for companies. There are massive benefits from flexibility here: You can switch your rented computing power on and off quickly depending on your needs. That’s a real advance.
The other main benefits — price and security — are looking shakier lately.
Salesforce, the leading provider of cloud marketing software, is increasing prices this month. The cost of the Microsoft 365 cloud productivity suite is rising, too, along with some Slack and Adobe cloud offerings, according to CIO magazine.
AWS is going to start charging customers for an IPv4 address, a crucial internet protocol. Even before this decision, AWS costs had become a major issue in corporate board rooms.
As a fast-growing startup, Snap bought into the cloud and decided not to build it’s own infrastructure. In the roughly five years since going public, the company has spent about $3 billion on cloud services from Google and AWS. These costs have been the second-biggest expense at Snap, behind employees.
“While cloud clearly delivers on its promise early on in a company’s journey, the pressure it puts on margins can start to outweigh the benefits, as a company scales and growth slows,” VC firm Andreessen Horowitz wrote in a blog. “There is a growing awareness of the long-term cost implications of cloud.”
Some companies, such as Dropbox, have even repatriated most of their IT workloads from the public cloud, saving millions of dollars, the VC firm noted.
What about security? Last month, Google, the third-largest cloud provider, started a pilot program where thousands of its employees are limited to using work computers that are not connected to the internet, according to CNBC.
The reason: Google is trying to reduce the risk of cyberattacks. If staff have computers disconnected from the internet, hackers can’t compromise these devices and gain access to sensitive user data and software code, CNBC reported.
So, cloud services connected to the internet are great for everyone, except Google? Not a great cloud sales pitch.
I do sometimes wonder if people don’t realize they don’t have to subscribe to every streaming service. Just pick the ones that have enough stuff you want to watch that makes it worth the price. It’ll probably only be a couple, and you’ll still be paying less than cable.
Once it got overly complicated and expensive, the old reliable alternative became viable again.
I’m not sure your comment is actually a response to mine. What I’m saying is it’s not overly complicated: you subscribe to the services that have stuff that you want to watch, and you don’t subscribe to the ones that don’t. That’s pretty simple, actually.
What the rest of us are saying is that actively managing subscriptions every month is a PITA headache. And so many people lap it up like that extra homework is totally normal.
It isn’t and it shouldn’t be. My tastes haven’t changed very much in the last 3 years. Hulu’s available content has probably rolled through thousands of titles in that time. I shouldn’t need an extra service just to do a bunch of work to figure out where most of the stuff I like is located. Or which that thing I was watching switched to. It’s asinine and totally pissing in the face of people like me that just want to pay a reasonable price to watch the things I like.
Well, what do you propose as a solution to your troubles?
🏴☠️
Oh, I thought this conversation was about wishing that either cable or streaming services were either more affordable or easier to use. If you’re just going to pirate everything anyway, why do you care what anything costs or how “confusing” it is to use?
Piracy isn’t a problem of price, it’s a problem of convenience. Five years ago, when there were less streaming services, and they had better libraries, way less people pirated stuff. Now that there are more of them, and their libraries are worse, piracy has become the convenient option again.
It’s both, but agreed.
I guess it depends on what you want to watch, I suppose. IF someone was to pay for a streaming service, there is nothing forcing them to pay for every single one. Like I said, you pick the ones that have enough of what you want to justify paying for it. If none of them fit that description, then you do you I guess. Nothing anyone has said yet has convinced me though that paying for any streaming service requires paying for all of them (which is the only thing people can possibly mean when they say that cable is now the same price or cheaper than streaming)
No one’s asking you to do this every month. Every few months or so, when you feel like it. That way it doesn’t feel like homework.
lol seriously: how the fuck do you think any of what you typed out is, ‘simple,’?
it’s not ‘simple’ because all of the companies and studios have ALL tried to make their own offerings - so ‘stuff you want to watch’ has been parceled out to 5 different streaming services, genius. can i have some of what you’re smoking or what, pal?
Look, this entire thread started because I was responding to the claim that streaming services are EXACTLY LIKE CABLE (which is in the headline of the op article) and I think it’s ridiculous that nobody else can see how dumb of a comment that is. If you subscribe for even ONE streaming service, you already have way more entertaining content than you would with cable, which is mostly just marathons of single shows, most of which I guarantee you have no interest in watching. So an individual streaming service is still a way better deal than cable. If you subscribe to 2, and are still paying less than what it would cost to have cable, that’s even better!
The idea that you absolutely have to subscribe to every single streaming service in order to compare to the content available on cable is laughable! You can still pay less for streaming overall and have access to way more quality content that you would with cable.
Edit: Pluto TV alone is better than cable and that’s free.
You know what I never have to do? Sit there and scroll through some streaming service LOOKING for something to watch.
Anytime I’ve gone to someone’s house or had roommates who had streaming services - I always saw them sitting there just scrolling for something to watch. I’ve hung out with someone who couldn’t even pick something, she just scrolled and then gave up!
I never have this issue on my own without streaming services. I know what I want to watch and when its on. And if nothing is on, I have a handy back up of things I already like so I don’t have to sit there being indecisive because I already know what I have is good.
Where as, streaming services are basically full of shovelware at this point. It’s laughable really.
The issue for me is that coming from pirating as a teen (no way my parents were paying for any digital entertainment), I got used to “choose what I want to watch” first and then finding a solution on how to watch it.
Streaming platforms don’t solve this problem at all, and even when you subscribe to everything some must-watch movies are not on any platforms.
Exactly. There is no such thing as a streaming service that has “enough stuff to watch” - I want to watch quality. You know the new Max commercials try to pass their service off as the one to choose because they claim they have something for everyone to watch and all their shows are good bets?
I can’t even think of a fucking Max show I’d want to watch outside of the adult swim stuff they carry and duh - I can just watch that on adult swim. Why the fuck would I need Max?
It’s more satisfying to complain about the evil greed of companies rather than acknowledge that perhaps one can manage one’s subscriptions a little more wisely.
Yeah, I’m thinking the same. I pay for some services, but not all. YouTube Premium family for ad-free yt experience for the kids as well as music, Netflix for the kids and Amazon’s streaming is included with prime that I use mostly for free shipping now and again as well as a free twitch sub to a buddy of mine. It’s way cheaper than the ~€150 that others are paying for some TV package that is packed with ads.
F YouTube premium, I just use an ad blocker and NewPipe.
YouTube literally can’t make the company work without premium. 2022 revenue was 30 billion. YouTube has almost 3 billion users, and only 80 million premium subscribers.
At $12/month, 12 months/year, that’s almost 12 billion of their revenue coming from premium subs… Meaning that the other 2.92 billion people account for only 18 billion, around $6/user/year.
Their whole business model is to keep making the experience of YouTube shitter so that they can charge a premium fee for what should be the default version of the site.
I hope the whole business fails.