1060

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 207 points 1 year ago

Did anyone actually expect anything else?

Capitalism will never cost less in the long term.

[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 77 points 1 year ago

Left to its own ends it seems it will cost the same but have better margins concentrated into greater wealth for fewer people.

[-] hansl@lemmy.ml 45 points 1 year ago

We need UBI, like, 5 centuries ago.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jecxjo@midwest.social 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Honestly i thought the concept of Uber would work. I'm commuting and you are too so you give me a few bucks to go my way. It was supposed to be "Cash, grass, or ass" minus the grass and ass.

But then people started driving purely to get people to pay them and suddenly its a taxi service.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

You'd have thought it was obvious, but everyone I've ever met IRL thought they'd be cheaper forever.

[-] USSEthernet@startrek.website 22 points 1 year ago

I work in IT and I've been against the cloud for over a decade and I always got looks like I was crazy. We still have vendors pushing us to buy into the cloud, I'll fight tooth and nail all the way. Unfortunately, a lot of vendors aren't giving much of a choice anymore by making their services cloud only. We'll have to start building custom applications soon to keep everything on-prem.

[-] Godort@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

As a fellow IT person, Cloud is the same as any new Buzzword tech.

It's an especially good fit for a handful of use cases, but the execs hear about it through whatever channels they frequent and think that it will solve a bunch of problems that dont exist.

[-] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

"it will solve a bunch of problems that dont exist"

Fellow fellow IT person here, yeah we have non-tech managers always coming to us with some vendor that's trying to sell them on something that will undoubtedly get us into a bullshit subscription because the sales pitch included the phrase "productivity increase" and they think by spending 30k and adopting an application that their people hate and would rather just use excel for, they'll save the company millions and will get a blowjob from the CEO.

[-] penguin@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago

Candles were once a significant cost. But lightbulbs are incredibly cheap.

Food used to take a whole day to acquire.

We have things that even royalty didn't have before, like air conditioning, out-of-season food, international travel, etc.

Capitalism sucks for sure. But it has given society a few benefits, and sometimes things do get significantly cheaper long term (but I'm generally skeptical about which items will go that way)

[-] butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Stop conflating market economics with capitalism, they aren't the same thing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nevemsenki@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Not sure how much of those improvements is capitalism and how much is technological improvement.

[-] focusedkiwibear@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I disagree here, Capitalism itself didn't provide society with jack squat.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Eheran@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

What does this have to do with capitalism? Are you implying that communism would not have that problem or that it would be expensive to begin with?

[-] wintermutehal@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago

No, you absolute brick. They are implying that a economic system built on maximizing profits would eventually subvert innovation to once again achieve maximum profit. Who the fuck brought up communism?

[-] letsgocrazy@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

What do you you mean "who brought up communism"

The implication that there would be some alternative system that would somehow invent cloud computing and Uber and streaming, but somehow just not raise prices this year?

No other system would have created this, so blaming the cost on capitalism is absurd.

Clearly the market is working exactly as if should do because Über and Lyft are constrained by the same realities as taxis.

It's like blaming capitalism for stepping on a Lego.

The whole line of reasoning is utterly absurd.

Capitalism is bad because you have to pay more for Disney?

The fuck?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] randomaccount43543@lemmy.world 94 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Back to pirating 🏴‍☠️ Arrrr!

[-] ShroOmeric@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

Like we ever left the open sea.. Ahoy, weigh anchor and keep it steady!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] radix@lemmy.world 87 points 1 year ago

If you subscribe to all the services, it can be expensive. But it's still FAR more flexible than traditional cable, since you can pick and choose which services you want on any given month, and cancel when you've binged all the shows. The shows that don't shove ads down your throat every 5 minutes, BTW.

This just reads like an ad for cable companies. "Please stay with the worst customer service in the country, the competition is just as expensive if you ignore how people actually use it!"

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] cbarrick@lemmy.world 54 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] kirklennon@kbin.social 41 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] randomaccount43543@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] Mrkawfee@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Exactly that's why these VC backed startups threw money on free rides and discounts. Blitzscaling to establish market dominance and then hike prices.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] lucid@programming.dev 38 points 1 year ago

I find these kinds of posts to be so entitled and pessimistic. Yeah, prices have definitely gone up, but the tech solutions are almost unilaterally better than their replacements.

  • Streaming: you don’t actually have to subscribe to every single streaming service, and most are dead simple to cancel (good luck canceling your cable service). Most are very lax about sharing passwords, or have cheaper ad-based tiers if you want to save a bit.
  • Uber: you can summon a comfortable car that seats up to 6 and can set your destination as well as multiple stops, and have it pull right up to where you are, often in 5 minutes or less, without needing to talk to or hail someone. In the US prices have crept up but in other countries it’s still a bargain compared to taxis, which are sometimes run like a racket.
  • Cloud: I don’t even know what this is doing here since we are talking consumer tech and this is more about B2B services. For the consumer the cloud is still dirt cheap and transformative, and doesn’t even have a “back in my day” equivalent.

Everything is amazing and no one is happy.

[-] JGrffn@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

I'm calling out your streaming counterpoint: in the beginning, there was Netflix. It had almost everything from almost all studios, didn't care about password sharing, and was easily very affordable, even more so if you split costs between everyone sharing accounts. The best part? No ads. The content kept getting better, the show formats kept getting more accesible.

It was clearly more convenient for everyone to just have Netflix, even more convenient than piracy, but now? Every studio, every company, they all veered away from Netflix and decided to create their own services. Then the price wars started, then the crackdowns on password sharing, and the ad-supported tiers, and then they started canceling shit, good shit, in order to claim them as losses in their tax declarations. And then we all lost, because now we can't find most content in a single place, we have to endure ads if we want to save money, and we cannot even use some services while traveling since there are limits to devices linked to the accounts. Oh and that show you liked? David Zaslav wanted a bonus this year, so it got shelved even though it was a huge success. It's no longer convenient to use streaming services, at least not as convenient as it used to be.

You know what's convenient now? Piracy, through Plex, Jellyfin, and Emby, all with automations, all easily shareable between friends. That's what I'm doing now, friends chip in when more storage space is needed, or when some additional service is needed. It's more work for the more tech-oriented of us, but hell if it isn't fun to just sail the high seas, giving the finger to these companies, while giving friends a good experience.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 year ago

The cloud was never cheap.

What a strange idea.

[-] jecxjo@midwest.social 9 points 1 year ago

Well for scaling. If you wanted on prem you bought cheap. And when you needed more power you were screwed. So if you were worried about that you bought too much system in the hopes you don't overload.

[-] PerCarita@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 year ago

It's almost like the underlying premise doesn't change with tech.

The things that can/should be broken is the stupid medallion system.

[-] Hypx@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Tech has become a scam in many areas. It's just doing the same thing as it always has been, just with an abusive corporate master. The goal is to scam the investor into funding bad ideas, or use that funding to undercut the competition. It is rarely about innovation anymore.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] s_s@lemmy.one 16 points 1 year ago

Same rodeo, new clowns.

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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. 🚽🪠

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] krellor@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

These are three topics that people love to focus on price against traditional services without looking any deeper.

Streaming is only just as expensive as cable if you subscribe to a bunch of them, but if you pick and choose, start and stop, it is cheaper. Further, it is a better experience. You can watch what you want, when you want. You don't need an annoying DVR setup, etc. The experience is better, even if you do choose to pay the same.

For Uber and Lyft, I don't use them because they are cheaper; I use them because they are better than traditional taxis. Seriously, how many people who say they aren't better than taxis have even used taxis heavily while traveling? Using taxis sucks, except possibly around airports or in the rare city you can walk outside and hail a cab. Outside of that you often have to call in, wait for an extended time with no ETA, etc. Lyft and Uber are a better experience, especially when you are outside major tourist or travel hubs.

Finally, cloud is more expensive, but gets you all sorts of benefits. Those benefits may or may not be worth the cost depending on you or your org, but it is not 1-1 to running on prem. On AWS you can trivially automate events across the entire ecosystem of services, run serverless infrastructure, etc. There are many great use cases for spending the money on the cloud, and most organizations should have a hybrid approach.

Sorry, end rant, but I always get tired of the false equivalence of these three things and the tunnel vision on price.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] fushuan@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] bane_killgrind@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

So for half these things, early on the costs of doing business were carried by other people. Streaming services relied on studios to produce content, and Uber relied on drivers to carry maintenance costs and downtime cost.

Now Netflix is a full studio and all the other services that are competitive have original content. Uber drivers are unionized.

Cloud services are fine for set low computation things, but once you scale past a certain point keeping your own IT staff busy is easy, and they provide a tailor made infrastructure.

[-] TheMadnessKing@lemdro.id 13 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] chris2112@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
1060 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59192 readers
2020 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