4 ms·

Typical startup play: charge almost nothing for a decade or longer, then raise prices or reduce offerings later on after killing almost every competing offering

Typical startup play: charge almost nothing for a decade or longer, then raise prices or reduce offerings later on after killing almost every competing offering in the world. This time, there are still several competitors left though. One day these services that aim to replace cable will be basically identical to cable but more expensive, or else there will be a bunch of walled gardens It’s like YouTube will the ad spam. YouTube wiped out every competitor who played ads or tried to monetize. Now that it stands on their corpses with a monopoly, they are pushing subscriptions and ads extremely hard, sometimes 3 ads in a 15 min video now

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
Yep, youtube then wonders why people use adblocks, and publishers wonder why people are starting to pirate again.
- rhino369 5y ago
  Nobody wonders why people don't want ads and want cheaper content. But these shows everyone watches cost a lot of money.
  - asdff 5y ago
    They don't have to cost a lot of money though. I've heard its getting to the points where its cheaper to shoot practical special effects like miniatures again than it is to contract out CGI work.
    - rhino369 5y ago
      There are networks that operate on low budgets. But Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Disney, etc. aren't spending hundreds of millions of shows out of generosity to artists.
- npteljes 5y ago
  This argument is a strawman, come on, is YouTube really wondering about any content consumption habit after being the most popular video portal for more than a decade? It's all just doing business, and all of that is just part of doing business. If enough people block youtube's ad domains, they'll just start embedding them in the video stream. And then just obfuscate the player so that you can't make it skip. Then maybe integrate the whole stack vertically so that you can't do anything with it, because it's encrypted from the server to your display panel. There's no "wondering" here at all.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    ads are already embedded in the stream, usually by youtubers themselves ("this video is sponsored by shadow nord raid vpn,..."), and extensions block this too. But once the ad to content ratio gets bad (and we're getting there), people just move elsewhere.
    - npteljes 5y ago
      I don't think so. We're already burying Netflix in this comment section, and cable still exist. Look at any sporting events, just how much more ads can it have? They have sponsored content plastered everywhere, and then, the exclusive broadcasting rights are sold to the highest bidder, so if you care about sports, you have to watch it on that exact one platform. And yet, it's very popular. So no I don't think people would move. People, in general, want things, and weigh in how much it also affects them negatively. They'll defer, deny, ignore, whatever it takes to participate in that "want". And the providers of that "want" know exactly this and ram as much profitable negativity in there as they can, and cover it up as much as they can. And people on the receiving end will tolerate. That's how ads will stay, with a combination of legality and applied psychology.
ozzythecat 5y ago
> Typical startup play: charge almost nothing for a decade or longer, then raise prices or reduce offerings later on after killing almost every competing offering in the world. If this is meant to describe Netflix, it’s categorically incorrect. 10 years ago, Netflix was a library of third party content. Today, their top content consists of Netflix’s own produced shows. The nature of their business has changed. You may appreciate their content or think all their originals are horrible. Regardless, it’s unreasonable in my mind that after 10 years in an evolving business, prices would stay the same. > One day these services that aim to replace cable will be basically identical to cable but more expensive, or else there will be a bunch of walled gardens Again - cable services were merely an intermediary. The business model shifted where you pay the content house directly and watch shows without ads. I don’t see any direct comparison here.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

Yep, youtube then wonders why people use adblocks, and publishers wonder why people are starting to pirate again.

rhino369 5y ago
Nobody wonders why people don't want ads and want cheaper content. But these shows everyone watches cost a lot of money.
- asdff 5y ago
  They don't have to cost a lot of money though. I've heard its getting to the points where its cheaper to shoot practical special effects like miniatures again than it is to contract out CGI work.
  - rhino369 5y ago
    There are networks that operate on low budgets. But Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Disney, etc. aren't spending hundreds of millions of shows out of generosity to artists.
npteljes 5y ago
This argument is a strawman, come on, is YouTube really wondering about any content consumption habit after being the most popular video portal for more than a decade? It's all just doing business, and all of that is just part of doing business. If enough people block youtube's ad domains, they'll just start embedding them in the video stream. And then just obfuscate the player so that you can't make it skip. Then maybe integrate the whole stack vertically so that you can't do anything with it, because it's encrypted from the server to your display panel. There's no "wondering" here at all.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  ads are already embedded in the stream, usually by youtubers themselves ("this video is sponsored by shadow nord raid vpn,..."), and extensions block this too. But once the ad to content ratio gets bad (and we're getting there), people just move elsewhere.
  - npteljes 5y ago
    I don't think so. We're already burying Netflix in this comment section, and cable still exist. Look at any sporting events, just how much more ads can it have? They have sponsored content plastered everywhere, and then, the exclusive broadcasting rights are sold to the highest bidder, so if you care about sports, you have to watch it on that exact one platform. And yet, it's very popular. So no I don't think people would move. People, in general, want things, and weigh in how much it also affects them negatively. They'll defer, deny, ignore, whatever it takes to participate in that "want". And the providers of that "want" know exactly this and ram as much profitable negativity in there as they can, and cover it up as much as they can. And people on the receiving end will tolerate. That's how ads will stay, with a combination of legality and applied psychology.

ozzythecat 5y ago

> Typical startup play: charge almost nothing for a decade or longer, then raise prices or reduce offerings later on after killing almost every competing offering in the world. If this is meant to describe Netflix, it’s categorically incorrect. 10 years ago, Netflix was a library of third party content. Today, their top content consists of Netflix’s own produced shows. The nature of their business has changed. You may appreciate their content or think all their originals are horrible. Regardless, it’s unreasonable in my mind that after 10 years in an evolving business, prices would stay the same. > One day these services that aim to replace cable will be basically identical to cable but more expensive, or else there will be a bunch of walled gardens Again - cable services were merely an intermediary. The business model shifted where you pay the content house directly and watch shows without ads. I don’t see any direct comparison here.