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.
You must log in or register to comment.
Streaming and storage on my file server remains stable in pricing
This is why, these days, I pay for just for Tidal as my only streaming service. Sill decently priced and convenient. I gave up my movie/shows streaming services because it just got too costly and fragmented, and using one for a month and then canceling to swap to another the next month is just annoying and not something most people would be willing to do.
So I stream my movies and shows through 3rd parties, such as movie-webb.app, himovies and fmovies. I still torrent anime though.
I suspect more and more people will search for illegal streams first before resorting to torrents. Or, like my parents, go back to cable. 🤷
Plus there is Subscription fatigue. I’ve gotten tired of all the damn subscriptions. Might go back to buying 4K blu-rays though for my favorites; physical media does always win.
I tried Streamio before and couldn’t figure out how to add my own streams (like himovies and fmovies).
Uber was unsustainably underpriced in order to gain market share. Pricing is temporary; the core benefit as a consumer was always the ability to request one from anywhere using an app (where you also paid) and have them come directly to you instead of needing to hail one. Taxi companies added that ability and now everything is better. There’s no reason why the approximate cost should vary much, outside of limited promotions. An Uber, a Lyft, and a taxi should cost roughly the same. Why wouldn’t they? Perpetual VC-funded pricing wasn’t what we were promised; the promise was convenient ordering and stress-free payments.
Uber was treated as a tech company by VC and was dramatically overvalued, white it should have been treated as what it is: a taxi company
They should be the same price but are definitely not. I always open Lyft and Uber when I’m gonna take one and Lyft is ALWAYS more expensive. The only time its not is when I have a coupon.
and Taxi’s are slightly more expensive than both where I live so I don’t bother. Most taxi’s where I live only do non-emergency medical transport anyways.
Exactly that’s why these VC backed startups threw money on free rides and discounts. Blitzscaling to establish market dominance and then hike prices.
Honestly I’m not complaining. This was, functionally, a large transfer of wealth from rich venture capitalists to ~everyone in the form of below-cost rides for several years.
start at a loss, ignore annoying legal requirements like worker status and collecting taxes and stuff, build up business, collect vc, sell at a bigger loss, run competitors out of town or buy them out on the cheap. crank up the prices, modify terms and policies, quit handing out free lunch… or sell out or go public and let making a profit be someone else’s problem.
textbook.
The point on the cloud is quite arbitrary to be honest. Yeah aws is coming to charge for extra unused ipv4 addresses, because there’s a damn shortage of them and it’s literally impossible to “produce more”. The solution is ipv6 but the infrastructure is not ready yet, which is embarrassing by now.
The point about security seems so god damn stupid. If you can work with limited outside access, it’s going to be more secure, the point of cloud being more secure is not to compare to your personal pc, it’s to compare to pcs that you expose to the exterior. In fact, Internet access and cloud servers don’t necessarily need to be the same thing, when people talks about Internet access they usually mean the web, and servers talk with each other with a myriad of other protocols that are not https.
I’m amazed I even read half of that, and even more that it was such uninformed bullshit.
What’s even the point of this post, I’m clearly not it’s target audience.
Bro really read a Business Insider post and criticized it from a technical point of view 💀
At least you didn’t get an aneurysm reading it.
yeah… I partially read the written post here, not realising that it was a BS article. It’s still annoying that it got almost 1k upvotes.
Yeah, cloud is unicorn thing that automagically fixes all bugs and vulns in software that company runs on it
That’s not true either? I never said that. Please don’t phrase your sentence implying I said thing I haven’t.
Cloud has its uses, and price and security are two big ones if you know what you are doing. And even if you don’t, if your use case is big enough that cloud’s expensive aspects arise, you really should hire extra engineers to manage those resources efficiently, wtf.
In any case, if the use case is big enough that managing it without proper planning on the cloud will be expensive, I assure you that doing it on premise will be more expensive the moment you need to expand your resources.
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.
That’s not even close to accurate reporting.
They removed internet access from engineers’ build machines, not from peoples’ workstations.
Builds at Google are reproducible and do not require external network access. See Bazel.
Yeah. Build machines should never have had internet access. Any dependencies your product uses should be downloaded once and then cached in your own artifactory. If you don’t, what you deploy in production could be different from what you tested in staging. That can allow attacks like this to happen much more easily.
There’s so much wrong with the cloud side of this post that I don’t even want to read the non cloud ones, I’m sure that it’s all manipulated bullshit with half truths lmao.
Back to pirating 🏴☠️ Arrrr!
Like we ever left the open sea… Ahoy, weigh anchor and keep it steady!
I legitimately did, I stopped pirating except for old obscure stuff that I couldn’t find anywhere.
On a serious note, I stopped pirating games because I have not reason now… but all the streaming services war never gave me at no point a better option than torrent…
Great point. I greatly* prefer the convenience of having my steam library.
On the flip side I pirated most of the old nes/SNES games that are harder to emulate well.
Like we ever left the open sea… Ahoy, weigh anchor and keep it steady!
Greed. It’s nothing new.
Everything always raises the prices to the amount people will pay for them. It takes time, but nobody will ever leave money on the table.
All the technology we need for ultimate entertainment is already here. Profits for the “big boys” is the only.piece that they think is missing. The truth is, everything works perfect before you have to inject a way to make money with it.
The ultimate entertainment was always available in each other’s bodies tbh.
You’re on main my guy
Not a guy, and that shouldn’t be news imo.
i have an inconsistent internet connection. it’s fine, but i refuse to ruin a movie by trying to stream it. since netflix and others don’t give you a way to pre-download the movie, they can completely suck my balls. 0/10. 🚽🪠
Many of them do give you a way to pre-download a movie, at least on mobile and windows apps. It’s not every service, or every movie, though.
Well, you can pre-download. Sometimes it’s called torrent))
yes this is the way
Honestly, given the current fragmentation of Streaming Service, it has become completely anti-consumer.
People don’t like to spend so much money just to watch one or two shows from one platform. They like the concept of AIO platforms and being on-demand & ad-free. All three of them have been broken.
I’ve ditched both and have gone mostly back to physical media. Even standard 1080p Blu-ray from 2007 look better than any streaming app as the bitrate is significantly higher, and you can find used Blu Ray for super cheap right now. New releases are a little expensive but there are still rental options
Rental is bad unless it’s for free. Or unless you rent to rip.
I was in the middle of watching Avatar The Last Airbender series for the first time (I somehow missed it all this time, crazy right?) on a Netflix shared accout when they did their dumb lockout.
So I went to The Exchange (gamestop but better) and got that and Legend of Korra on DVD. The special features and commentary are there too, which Netflix doesn’t give you at all.
Also I don’t know who needs to hear this but libraries have all kinds of movies and shows on Blu Ray and DVD that you can take home! It’s one of my favourite things to check out there
You are right! People often forget about libraries, torrents of the past.
My mother was a journalist, her heyday was in the 80s-early 00s, she covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as the wars in the former Yugoslavia. We had a long phone call last weekend where we ended up talking about Twitter, the online service that changed journalism. I explained to her that the current owner put a foot in his mouth and was forced to buy it at a higher price than the initial valuation while grumbling that it was not turning profit, she guffawed at this. She said, “When has the media ever made profit??”
The only difference between old media and new online media is that online media also sell user data to make more revenue (along with old time subscription models and selling ad spaces), and even with this they’re still not making profit.
I agree, except that Facebook and Google make completely insane amounts of money.
Old fashioned as I am, in my head Facebook is still an online forum/social network/social gaming site like MySpace, Orkut, Friendster and that ilk. And Google is a search engine. But you’re right. Of course they’re new media.
Here’s my veeery slight pushback, Youtube doesn’t seem to be that profitable for Alphabet and Facebook is pushing the Metaverse because they think they might need a turn left and start selling hard products (like VR headsets) to keep engagement. Media is tough business.
Google the search engine and Facebook the social media site function as uber-media: they control access to readers and viewers. It’s difficult for actual media to not be on facebook or google news, though larger companies have been increasingly trying.
YouTube is slightly different, having a lot of content made specifically for YouTube. It is profitable but not nearly as much as Google’s other businesses - still, on it’s own, it would be a significant corporation itself. I suppose part of the value is it prevents someone else from having a large business hosting long-form videos. They’ve been trying hard to copy TikTok though, for whatever reason… possibly because it’s easier to stick ads in between 1 minute videos than 60 minute videos.
Facebook/Meta has done their best to evolve over time, since the original Facebook website has been somewhat dying (in the US) since around 2015. WhatsApp is huge for them, mainly outside the US. Instagram was a good purchase which they evolved into at least 3 incarnations since then… added videos and messages, basically making it more like Facebook, then added Stories to copy Snapchat after Snap refused to sell to them. Then, added Reels to copy TikTok. And more recently, released their Twitter imitation, Threads. The Metaverse thing seems to have been a flop, possibly because they’re facing competition from companies like Valve and Sony who actually have a clue about the game business, and nobody really wants to do VR Facebook outside the context of a game (if they did, they’d play Second Life…). Pretty much the Metaverse thing was a dumb idea. Oculus is somewhat successful, though.
Meta is evolving in interesting ways. The Oculus Rift line was huge for modelling artists and designers who worked with engineers (the ones I knew anyway). Now they revived Threads but interestingly it’s marketed as “Threads by Instagram”, because Facebook as a brands is somewhat tarnished, and Meta is a punchline, but Instagram is still popular and well-liked.
My prediction for the Metaverse is, and I’m just another idiot on the internet, that they’re trying to make it into a play AND work platform, where people might do online meetings in VR, spend online money with Metacoin to buy real world stuff, then also spend leisure time playing in the Metaverse. The way Amazon have consumers who are also products (and sometimes also Amazon workers), the vision for Meta might be that one day people could live their whole lives on the Metaverse and be this worker/consumer/product in one fell swoop. I wouldn’t want that, but I can see how this might be their line of thinking.
The deal with Threads and Instagram is they’re sharing the same account base. Rather than make a 3rd or 4th product with a new set of signins and credentials, you just activate your Instagram account on Threads. It seems like a decent idea. It is notable they chose Instagram vs. Facebook… but also, Threads as a product is more similar to Instagram. Instagram has been way more trendy with their desired market for several years now, too.
Sure, I agree that’s their vision for the Zucka-Metaverse. It’s a somewhat sound theory, if people get used to it and the software is sufficient. It might take another generation or two before people are really into that.
I still wish it wouldn’t go that far. I remember around 6-7 years ago my friends speculated about space tourism over a dinner party. That the contemporary space research wasn’t about the environment, it was about rich people’s tourism. I was genuinely disappointed that my friends’ “silly” predictions turned out to be true.
Yeah, the vision of living in VR seems like a dystopia. Plus, it’s facebook, which makes it even worse.
Same rodeo, new clowns.
Sports is where they know they’ve got everyone by the balls. Tivo-ing games is great, but you’re always just watching old games. You still need some kind of service that provides the games live. Pirate streams are getting chopped.
