this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
727 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

60080 readers
3331 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
727
Consumers are paying more than ever for streaming TV each month and analysts say there’s no reason for the companies to stop raising prices (finance.yahoo.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
178 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Consumers are paying more than ever for streaming TV each month and analysts say there’s no reason for the companies to stop raising prices::Finding new subscribers in a saturated streaming video market isn't easy. And with legacy media companies desperate to recoup revenue declines in their linear TV businesses, the cost of your monthly plan is likely to keep rising.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh how I hate those graphs that could but doesn't start at zero.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It wouldn’t make any sense in this case, their prices never started at 0.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

It's about perceived change.

For me it's not the same if 1000 to 1001 shows up as a 50% hike because the diagram starts on 999, as a 1 to 2 hike which also shows up as a 50% with the diagram starting at 0.

They both look the same, but in the first case the hike is 0,1% as in the second it's really 50%.

So for me it's bad journalism or trying to fake things (which here isn't needed IMO).