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.

  • radix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    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!”

      • The_v@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Once it got overly complicated and expensive, the old reliable alternative became viable again.

          • some_guy@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            What the rest of us are saying is that actively managing subscriptions every month is a PITA headache. And so many people lap it up like that extra homework is totally normal.

            It isn’t and it shouldn’t be. My tastes haven’t changed very much in the last 3 years. Hulu’s available content has probably rolled through thousands of titles in that time. I shouldn’t need an extra service just to do a bunch of work to figure out where most of the stuff I like is located. Or which that thing I was watching switched to. It’s asinine and totally pissing in the face of people like me that just want to pay a reasonable price to watch the things I like.

                  • Infynis@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    11
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Piracy isn’t a problem of price, it’s a problem of convenience. Five years ago, when there were less streaming services, and they had better libraries, way less people pirated stuff. Now that there are more of them, and their libraries are worse, piracy has become the convenient option again.

            • HidingCat@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No one’s asking you to do this every month. Every few months or so, when you feel like it. That way it doesn’t feel like homework.

          • focusedkiwibear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            lol seriously: how the fuck do you think any of what you typed out is, ‘simple,’?

            it’s not ‘simple’ because all of the companies and studios have ALL tried to make their own offerings - so ‘stuff you want to watch’ has been parceled out to 5 different streaming services, genius. can i have some of what you’re smoking or what, pal?

          • cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You know what I never have to do? Sit there and scroll through some streaming service LOOKING for something to watch.

            Anytime I’ve gone to someone’s house or had roommates who had streaming services - I always saw them sitting there just scrolling for something to watch. I’ve hung out with someone who couldn’t even pick something, she just scrolled and then gave up!

            I never have this issue on my own without streaming services. I know what I want to watch and when its on. And if nothing is on, I have a handy back up of things I already like so I don’t have to sit there being indecisive because I already know what I have is good.

            Where as, streaming services are basically full of shovelware at this point. It’s laughable really.

      • Bogasse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The issue for me is that coming from pirating as a teen (no way my parents were paying for any digital entertainment), I got used to “choose what I want to watch” first and then finding a solution on how to watch it.

        Streaming platforms don’t solve this problem at all, and even when you subscribe to everything some must-watch movies are not on any platforms.

        • cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly. There is no such thing as a streaming service that has “enough stuff to watch” - I want to watch quality. You know the new Max commercials try to pass their service off as the one to choose because they claim they have something for everyone to watch and all their shows are good bets?

          I can’t even think of a fucking Max show I’d want to watch outside of the adult swim stuff they carry and duh - I can just watch that on adult swim. Why the fuck would I need Max?

      • db1@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I’m thinking the same. I pay for some services, but not all. YouTube Premium family for ad-free yt experience for the kids as well as music, Netflix for the kids and Amazon’s streaming is included with prime that I use mostly for free shipping now and again as well as a free twitch sub to a buddy of mine. It’s way cheaper than the ~€150 that others are paying for some TV package that is packed with ads.

        • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          F YouTube premium, I just use an ad blocker and NewPipe.

          YouTube literally can’t make the company work without premium. 2022 revenue was 30 billion. YouTube has almost 3 billion users, and only 80 million premium subscribers.

          At $12/month, 12 months/year, that’s almost 12 billion of their revenue coming from premium subs… Meaning that the other 2.92 billion people account for only 18 billion, around $6/user/year.

          Their whole business model is to keep making the experience of YouTube shitter so that they can charge a premium fee for what should be the default version of the site.

          I hope the whole business fails.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s more satisfying to complain about the evil greed of companies rather than acknowledge that perhaps one can manage one’s subscriptions a little more wisely.

    • cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Cable not offering a la carte services doomed it. But most of the networks just put their IP on a streaming service so it’s the same thing except they still get to milk the boomers.

      • ares35@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        before i dumped cable, i had an a la carte option. 15 channels (no sports or ‘premiums’) + locals instead of 200+ of junk. “saved” a whole $5-6 a month.

        the problem isn’t necessarily the providers’ product offerings… it’s greed… rampant and excessive greed.

        • ripcord@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          A la carte would be more like if you could pick and choose the individual channels, not just select from a few packages.

          Your main point is still solid, though.

    • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a fan of animation, I have to subscribe to a good few services to get what I want. Netflix for Nimona and Castlevania, Max for what’s left of cartoon network (RIP Summer Camp Island), Paramount for nick stuff, Amazon Prime for Vox Machina, Disney for Gravity Falls, and Crunchyroll for anime. (obviously these aren’t an exhaustive list, just some examples of stuff I’ve wanted to watch recently).

      And yeah, I could try to juggle all of these by subbing and unsubbing each month, but I don’t want to spend that much effort on something I’m trying to do in my downtime. And even if I did, their selection is still limited to relatively recent stuff and region locked to hell, and as a cherry on top, they might decide to nuke entire series with no way to access them (again, looking at you, Max). And every year they get more strict about password sharing, are more expensive, and include more ads.

      So yeah, still not as bad as cable, but it’s been a shitshow in the past 5 years and doesn’t show signs of getting any better.

    • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean I certainly get it though. Streaming has gone down hill with more and more studios packing up to launch their own service and take all their content with them. It feels a LOT like cable. The difference is no ads. $80 spread out to all the streaming services they only get your money. $80 for cable they make that plus ads. I think it hurts more cause Netflix keeps raising and the quality doesn’t match. Promising shows don’t get the time. They spend the money on big stars or something?

      In my opinion the real problems are that the streaming services are now starting to follow Netflix’s lead and look into cracking down on password sharing. My other issue is it seems it can be arbitrary what gets renewed and idk other services but netflix certainly seems unfair and a horrible way to track when you literally have all the data possible. When something releases they only look at views of the first week or something! And for some reason a really small amount of time watching counts? None of it makes sense to me. What about how many people “add to list” or watch the full preview?

    • 🖖USS-Ethernet@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You do realize that streaming companies have been looking at ways to prevent people from subbing and canceling constantly. That won’t be an option much longer. Just like the password sharing crackdown and price increases, they are constantly looking for ways to keep that revenue.

      • Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m in the US. I subscribe around Black Friday (day after our Thanksgiving) for the year. Usually some streaming service has a deal. I currently have Disney+ and Hulu with ads bundled together for $5/mo and Peacock for 99 cents/month for the year, and Starz for $3 for two months (have to remember to cancel soon). Those deals are the only reason why we are subscribed to those.

        IIf they offer deals two or.more years in a row, my husband and I take turns subscribing.

        With all those options there is still very little to watch.

    • sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yup, not sure if the OP is a cable astro-turf account or just a useful idiot. Yes, if you subscribe to every streaming service under the sun, you might manage to reach the cost of the average cable subscriber. If you want a real apples to apples comparison through, cable tended to be a lot more expensive, once you had premium channels and made the mistake of wanting that one channel what was only available in their top, hand us your wallet and bend over a barrel tier.

      Back before I cut the cord, I was paying ~$200 a month to my local cable company. Why, I wanted HBO, FX and Discovery (before Discovery went to shit). The only way to get that mix was in “fuck your wallet” package and also paying for HBO as an add-on. Fortunately, Discovery went to shit and we realized that we could go OTA and streaming and get everything we wanted for way less.

      Sure, prices have creeped up over the years. Netflix is getting really expensive, and we’ve added other services. We’re still well under $100 a month. Also, we can pick and choose what services we subscribe to. We regularly purge services we’re not using and pick them back up when something interesting comes along. This is way, way better than the cable company’s “fuck you, pay us” system.

      • Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        One difference is that you used to be able to get a cable plus Internet plus phone package for a temporary deal of $99/month for two years. You could threaten to.cancel.and the cable company would offer to extend it or offer a similar deal (say, the same package for $125/month). If you were willing to inconvenience yourself, you could go ahead and cancel.and get another member of the household to get the package as a new customer, bringing it back.down to $99/month (or, if you were a tenant, you could get the new deal.when you moved again).

        Now Internet is separated from the entertainment piece, so it’s $110+/month for Internet plus whatever you pay for all of the streaming services plus cell phone (since hardly anyone is paying for a landlines anymore). (Plus VPN or other Internet adjacent spending if so inclined. ) That adds up.to more than the old school cable, Internet and.phone package. I think separating everything out is where people are feeling the pinch.

        • sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ya, if you’re willing to setup a house of cards and you count worst case scenario for the streaming setup, they’re close. Though you still find yourself stuck with whatever service the cable company was willing to give you. At the same time, if you put a bit of effort into the streaming side, the math gets worse again. My internet is $25/month. I have the T-Mobile Home Internet and caught their $25 for life deal. Cell phone is a wash, as I had T-Mo for many years and wouldn’t touch AT&T again with a stolen dick. As for VPN, you only need one if you’re regularly pirating, I don’t do that. Really, there’s nothing to recommend going back to cable. It’s just a bad deal all around.