this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
219 points (85.2% liked)

Technology

59641 readers
2892 users here now

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


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kakes@sh.itjust.works 119 points 6 months ago (2 children)

And the funny thing is, rather than competition driving down prices, they only seem to be competing for who can charge the most while showing more ads.

[–] Amir@lemmy.ml 27 points 6 months ago (2 children)

They're not truly competing because they make every show they can exclusive to their platform

[–] kakes@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 months ago

Fair point, honestly. It's more like a group of mini-monopolies than any kind of actual competitive space.

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Yep, there can be no competition with exclusive access

[–] Flatfire@lemmy.ca 23 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Streaming infrastructure is expensive, and all these smaller networks that decided to spin up their own didn't seem to realise that. Prices go up, ad tiers get added because none of them are actually making any money. It's just quarter after quarter of loss even with substantial revenue due to the fact that producing content, hosting and then scaling globally to make it available to a wide variety of geographic locations just isn't cost effective. Even Amazon, the lord of cloud compute itself, hasn't been able to maintain this.

So in this case, competition limits the only way they make money: people subscribing. Greedy bastards.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

The fucked thing is that it wouldn’t be such a huge deal but they all want to make money on the current number of customers instead of their potential. People are poorer and poorer and have to choose maybe one or two services at a time at the prices they are.

They would rather get one customer for $15/mo than 4 or 5 customers for $5/mo. And they together created an environment where it’s hard for any one of them to make the first move. Healthy competition only really works when people act in good faith and none of these people are capable of that even when it benefits them.

Business people are truly dumbest creatures on this planet. “What if we make them poor and then charge them a bunch of money? That makes sense, right? And if they get upset we tell them it’s their fault.”

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 3 points 6 months ago

A lot of the infrastructure is provided to ISP's free for local caching/deployment. Netflix has the Open Connect program to greatly relieve stress on interconnects and backbones.

If memory serves, ISP didn't like this and would rather profit from fees for the internet traffic. I feel like those fees and licensing fees account for a significant increase in subscription costs.