731
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
731 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
62853 readers
2976 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 other!
- 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
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Where was Google's concern for paying for infrastructure in the past? Google choose to bleed money which made it harder for smaller competitors to compete and take a share of the users, and now Google wants to have their cake and eat it too. Too damn bad.
I am unwilling to pay for the content while Google is where the content is. Odysee seemed shady to me so I stopped using it. Floatplane is proprietary and I'm trying to kick the nasty habit of using proprietary software, I don't want to start using new ones. I used to pay to listen to a podcast but I got tired of the content. I donate to Wikipedia.
Payback is fair? Even though these very digital megacorporations are just now facing antitrust lawsuits for very good reasons? The only argument for having to use these platforms as a content creator is reach. But if Google, Amazon, Meta, etc. only got their market-dominating positions by illegal means, nothing is fair about wanting payback.
I am paying money to people creating content for me directly, even for some YouTube channels. If I were to abide by Google's rules, I'd have to pay double. For the infrastructure & the people actually producing the content. Sorry... Why would I? I will not pity a monopolist because of their lost profits as long as I can circumvent it somehow.
It's not fair, it's literally illegal under antitrust law. The DOJ has been accused of "taking a nap" and not enforcing those laws for 20 years... but they're awake now. Which is probably part of why Google is suddenly changing course. They're involved in a few antitrust investigations as it is and don't want any more.
You can't run a company at a loss leader until nearly all your competition is dead and then start charging more than customers are willing to pay (or showing more ads than customers are willing to watch).
I'm happy to pay for video content - but I won't pay the prices YouTube is charging and their ads are even worse.
It's not fair to pay money for services to a company involved in unrelated lawsuits? Does the antitrust investigation negate the expenses associated with running the operation of serving you content?
Are all competitors dead? You can switch to watching TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, for random user generated content. You can go to nebula if you want YouTube style documentaries. You can go to any movie platform if you want to watch random stuff. They are all either in the red, backed by VC, waiting to do the same thing, or serving aggressive ads, or selling your data, or costing money.
How much people are willing to pay is irrelevant in the context of fairness. Fairness is about a company breaking even. Customer readiness is however relevant to business, and in this case I'm afraid that the evidence is against you - after countless similar complaints in the past, people haven't left the platform, and people have signed up to pay.
Paying for services is normal. It's unrealistic not to. It's unproductive to pretend otherwise.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
Google offered content for free and so played a part in making generation(s?) of users expect content for free.
I used to watch films in cinema before they started playing them on TV but now I 99.8% don't care about them, or shows. I use Crunchyroll for a couple of anime but most of my content is only on YouTube.
Then don't watch the content. But in lieu of a open source, non profit, market dominating video platform thus means not watching videos.
Even if that open source platform existed it would require it to be more or equally profitable for creators to reach a point where people upload to both platforms.
I'll keep watching the content, thanks.
Floatplane is owned by a YouTuber more about capitalism than tech at this point
Look at nebula, the creator owned network (from what I've heard about it)