Comment by lotsofpulp
13 days ago
> this is more due to the fact that each service charges what we used to pay (in fact more, as in some cases prices have gone up by more than general inflation) for a single service that provided the same amount of content that they cared about.
That is because the introductory prices were not 1 to 1 to the business’ existing revenue streams from cable and satellite transmission fees. Especially considering that before, there was a very limited supply of content restricted by time slots, and now you are buying far, far more on demand content without advertising breaks. And without contracts with a cable or satellite company.
People are spoiled, and don’t appreciate how much easier and cheaper it is to watch or listen to most content than it was pre streaming services.
One only needs to look at market cap graphs of the various media companies to see that streaming isn’t the cash cow people think it is.
> That is because the introductory prices were not 1 to 1 to the business’ existing revenue streams from cable and satellite transmission fees.
Bad pricing descisions are a them problem, not a me problem. But it isn't just pricing of individual services that is the issue, it is the separation of content amonst many services which is the companies gauging out what they can with no care for how inconvenient it is for the audience, at least those who don't turn back to the high seas.
> without advertising breaks
Despite the increasing prices, and the need for multiple servies at those prices, the adverts are very much coming back. All the conveniences of streaming are being taken away and companies are surprised that we aren't happy paying for that…
> People are spoiled […] see that streaming isn’t the cash cow people think it is
If they are, then they were spoiled by the companies being deliberately misleading to get them hooked in the first place. My level of sympathy is limited by their level of honesty and “prey I don't change the deal further” attitude.
When the question is “but how did you expect us to make good business under those conditions?”, a perfectly valid answer is “you very much lead us to believe that you could”.
> When the question is “but how did you expect us to make good business under those conditions?”
There is no “make good” since there was no contract about long term expectations.
Even the media business’ leaders don’t know the future. Fewer eyeballs watching or listening to a specific piece of media means the cost has to be amortized over a smaller audience, meaning higher prices, or less quantity and quality of media.
Price volatility should be expected in a changing business environment, and the media business got rocked by increasing supply (Meta/ByteDance/video games/on demand historic catalogs/etc) in the last 20 years, as evidenced by the change in their market values.
It’s just business, so no one needs your sympathy, but it is also weird to see supposedly numerate people gripe about the effects of rapidly shifting supply and demand curves.
> but it is also weird to see supposedly numerate people gripe about the effects of rapidly shifting supply and demand curves
I suppose. But it is also weird to see supposedly numerate businesses repeatedly having the same trouble then blaming everyone else for it.
It is almost like they are deliberately running a long-term bait & switch everytime (see also another item coincidently on HN's front page today, Stop selling "unlimited", when you mean "until we change our minds").