this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
907 points (98.4% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
55056 readers
195 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
2013 Netflix competed just fine. Piracy was mostly dead back then
But 2013 Netflix didn't have to compete with Prime Video, Disney Plus, Paramount Plus, HBO Max, Apple TV, Hulu, Peacock, or any of the million "add-on" channels that Amazon uses as an excuse to paywall you off from the content.
The fact that they all run in their own UI, desperate the shove the next instalment of mediocrity down your throat, means that I've gone back to piracy. It's just much easier to type what I'm after into Radarr or Sonarr than it is to go through the services to see what's available. Sure, I can use Justwatch, but 80% of the time what I'm after isn't on anything I have.
More competition should mean lower prices. How is competition diving prices up? Seems rigged.
It's only competition if they provide similar products.
The current landscape is like farmers markets and butchers. Sure they both provide food, but they don't really directly compete with eachother.
They certainly do compete with each other but it's just a general misconception that competition lowers prices.
Pepsi and Coke have been competing with each other for decades and Coke has larger market share. So why doesn't Pepsi just lower prices? Pepsi even has the diversified income of doing more than drinks. Lowering prices doesn't lead to market share and Coke can just match the price.
Look at Apple's growth in the American market, they can sell a product that is significantly more expensive than competitors and still gain market share.
I still think you're looking at competition slightly wrong.
Coke and Pepsi do compete with eachother, along with the rest of the drink market. And overall prices in that industry are pretty low, some people will buy other competitors (the store brand Cola's). But overall competition is working.
Apple only kinda competes. Sure a phone is a phone and a laptop is a laptop. But unless someone is entering the market for the first time. They already have applications they are looking to use, so if you need an iPhone, you need an iPhone, and same for a Mac. But if you're an android or Windows user, suddenly you have a lot more choice because there is lots of competition!
The reason companies setup walled gardens, or pay for exclusive access to a piece of media is to erode competition. If a user wants that thing, they can only get it from that one place.
Are you're saying competition doesn't exist because products aren't the same?
I'm trying to not disparage your argument here but if I go with your reasoning then I feel like there is no competition so that you can justify prices not going down. Where I believe competition simply doesn't lower prices because capitalism desires more profit not less profit. Why fight over scraps when you can create a market by manipulating people into thinking: Green chat bubble mean poor so me no use RCS or open blue bubble because green bubble mean poor.
If competition didn't exist for apple then they could give android an imessage app.
I'm saying the competition can only exist because products that actually fill the same need.
If you decide that you need product A, and have multiple options on where to get that, you have competition.
So if you're looking for a Cola, you have options.
If you're looking to play StardewValley, you have options where you want to buy it and which platform you want to play it on, you don't need to buy a new game system to play it.
If you're looking to play the latest Zelda game, you don't have options, you need to buy a Switch.
If you're looking to watch Ozarks, you don't have options, you can only watch Netflix.
If you're looking to just have something playing on TV and don't really care what it is, you have options.
If you're looking to listen to music, you have options, most of the steaming services have most of the music.
If you're looking to be able to text friends, you have options, any phone will work.
If you're looking to be able to iMessage friends and for your case only iMessage will work, iPhone is your only option.
Competition is complex and is more dependent on a consumer needs than just classification of what a product is. In your earlier point you used Apple as an example of a company that can increase prices despite competition, but really Apple is a prime example of a company putting up walls to an ecosystem making it really hard to leave once you're in.
Generally in the current tech landscape there barely is any competition outside openish platforms. But with tech, you often can't look at competition as product A vs Product B. Like while we can say that Window competes with OSx, it's harder to say that a Mac laptop competes with a given Dell laptop (because what you can do with each OS is different to different people).
This is why I like to think of all the tv streaming services as different types of food stores. There is no supermarket that supplies everything, you're forced to have memberships to the single butcher, the single milk man, the single bakery, etc. if you want a particular food, there is currently no (or very little) competition. You can certainly survive on just bread, and people are happy to do that, but that bakery can and will increase prices whenever because they aren't really competing with the butcher.
This isn't how market competition is done though. Otherwise every product you listed is a monopoly.
I thought I listed a bunch of cases where there were options (and not monopolies). But yes, 100% inside many ecosystems are monopolies, and those ecosystems/walled gardens have been slowly expanding every chance these companies have.
I agree but they are not technically market monopolies.
Streaming services are middle men with exclusivity rights on products. They sell simular but different things, think of them like dealership repair shops, they both fix cars but they fix different cars.
It is rigged. Exclusive deals keep content restricted so they're not directly competing; if you want that show you have to pay for service X. Or, you know, yarrrr.
Same amount of content, more players, outbidding each other, passing on those lovely reverse savings.
See if it was like music, with a massive back catalogue available to everyone, you'd have four or five services competing on price. But it isn't. And it will suffer for that.
If it were* like music
When using be in an if clause for an unreal conditional sentence, always conjugate it as were, no matter what the subject is. Even if the subject is first-person singular (I) or third-person singular (he, she, or it), still use were with an if clause in unreal conditional sentences.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/conditional-sentences-was-instead-of-were/
Calling people out for their grammar isn't cool anymore; now we just let one another live in peace. You should try it.
Your comment makes no sense to me. It was never cool, and it isn't now.
If it was never cool, there's no need to extra uncool it now.
I don't think it can be made any more uncool than it already is
If it was possible, you could!
Aha! You're now expecting me to be bigger than myself, but I'm a very, very small person, therefore:
If it were* possible
I hope this is sarcasm. They weren't being a dick, just educating people, which is a good thing
*When using "be" in an "if" clause for an unreal conditional sentence
When referring to words, use quotation marks for clarity.
Great suggestion, thank you
prices are lower, piracy is nearly free for most, no?
I would like to see some evidence that the competition resulted in Netflix losing a lot of subscribers, and thus money, rather than not hitting their predicted revenue targets. Because I would bet it's the latter and not the former. I don't know of too many people who said, "well, I had Netflix, but Disney is doing streaming video now so I won't be watching Bake-Off anymore." They just ended up getting Netflix and Disney+.
For a while anyway. Now people are dropping these services due to the price hikes. Unless you downgraded your Netflix service when they added lower tiers with fewer options and ads, to maintain the basic Netflix service you had in 2016, you're paying an additional $5 a month today.
Netflix and all the other streaming services are built upon the insane idea that there are an infinite number of new customers that will continue to sign up regularly. Some of them don't even think you need all that much programming to draw them. Paramount+ has a fraction of the original programming of Netflix, Peacock, Apple, Amazon, etc. but still costs $10 a month and will most assuredly continue to raise its prices based on the idea that there are either an infinite number of Star Trek fans or they will have to raise their prices.
Same thing for me. I can also use Findroid on my Android phone with microG to watch stuff from my Jellyfin server. I think the Netflix app wouldn't even work on my phone.
I used to pay for Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, and Paramount+. Then me and m wife noticed that every time we wanted to rewatch a show or a movie, it was not available on any of those. So now I only pay for Newsgroups.
Or use jellyseerr/overseerr, and browse for media. Just like the streaming services.
Most accurate piracy meme I've ever seen