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 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)
That's the problem with the libraries. At this point, most streaming services only really have a handful of things on them that any given person will want to watch. I used to use Netflix almost daily. Now, I can't remember the last time I opened the app, because there's never anything I want to watch
Right, and what I'm saying is that because of these trends, there are really two options: pay for all of the services (or have a password sharing network), so you have a decent selection of shows, or, don't pay for any of them. We're getting to a point where a single streaming service isn't worth the $12 it costs because it's inconvenient and empty. I don't expect it to get better.
you're just glossing over what people are typing because you're ok being shrouded in ignorance. that's a choice, alright.
nothing is forcing you to pay for every single one, correct… but actively managing subscriptions is a pain, and you don’t get to watch things as they come out so you don’t have that topic of conversation with people (sometimes)
meanwhile, piracy automatically downloads new episodes often mere hours after it’s released, for free, you don’t have to actively manage subscriptions, you don’t have to remember which service has what, there’s no concern that your favourite show is suddenly going to get removed from the platform
i’m happy to pay a subscription fee or 2, however i will absolutely not pay an exorbitant amount for an objectively worse experience… and when it hits that tipping point, well pirate all the things is the go
I wasn't aware that any such setup still worked with minimal setup. The ones I've seen reference in the past were shutdown and more torrent sites are getting shut down all the time.
Are you talking about private trackers? Because those can be hit or miss, assuming you can even get access to a good one at all.
i wouldn’t say minimal, but it certainly just works with no intervention once you set it up… not torrents; start on usenet and you’ll never look back!
Are you the kind of person who just watches anything?