12 ms·

I'm struggling to see this happen - my impression is that companies will now use AI in the place of paying for a resource. Retail value will stay the same, and

I'm struggling to see this happen - my impression is that companies will now use AI in the place of paying for a resource. Retail value will stay the same, and companies will pocket the difference. I think there could be situations where other companies undercut because they can afford to now - maybe then, that'll drive the price down. What if that doesn't happen though? Couldn't companies just standardize around a price and remain at that? For example, triple AAA titles are always around $60-70. If there's a smaller company / indie that is dropping the price a ton, they still may not have the resources or IP to compete with a large company. I wouldn't be surprised as well if large companies were aggressive in copyright / ownership of a famous AI voice. They could just swarm a smaller company / indie with lawsuits if they use the voice or a voice they perceive as familiar. It wouldn't even matter if the large company was wrong - they have more than enough money to bury a smaller company in lawsuits since the smaller company doesn't have enough to fight back.

crop_rotation 4y ago
This sounds nice in theory but not going to happen in practice. > Couldn't companies just standardize around a price and remain at that? This sounds like a cartel, which would be neither legal nor easy to do. All it takes is one rogue member who tries to gain more by breaking the cartel. (Similar to how FB/Meta didn't take part in the hiring cartel and kept paying high wages). The thing is, the current generation of Netflix style content flood is not too far from a world of totally auto generated content flood.
- cyrialize 4y ago
  Makes sense. The thing is though - I feel like there's already a ton of companies that do something similar or other things that are sketchy. Like how ISPs pick and choose what parts of an area they'll support and then you're stuck with only one ISP that you can choose from. This has been true in every place I've lived in. Another good example is Luxottica. They own the majority of sunglasses brands as well as Sunglasses Hut. When Oakley wanted to lower their prices dramatically, Luxoticca told them they have to keep their prices around their price points or they'll no longer sell the brand [0]. Companies do things all the time that are legally grey or illegal. Something being illegal won't stop a company from doing it. Again, I understand where you're coming from. For me when I saw "This sounds nice in theory but not going to happen in practice." it made me think of all these companies that are already doing sketchy things. I could be wrong and just not understand price points in companies. It's just difficult for me to envision a future where companies aren't taking advantage of AI to pocket huge profits in some way. [0]: "Oakley had tried to dispute their prices because of Luxottica's large marketshare, and Luxottica responded by dropping Oakley from their stores, causing their stock price to drop, followed by Luxottica's hostile take over of the company." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica
  - crop_rotation 4y ago
    > Like how ISPs pick and choose what parts of an area they'll support and then you're stuck with only one ISP that you can choose from. This has been true in every place I've lived in. But being an ISP is capital intensive. You need to spend money to support a bigger area. The content providers want to win all. > Another good example is Luxottica. They own the majority of sunglasses brands as well as Sunglasses Hut. When Oakley wanted to lower their prices dramatically, Luxoticca told them they have to keep their prices around their price points or they'll no longer sell the brand [0]. This is different though. They can do it because they control the store. Nobody controls the content store. > It's just difficult for me to envision a future where companies aren't taking advantage of AI to pocket huge profits in some way. Companies will be trying to pocket huge profits for sure, but for themselves not for the collective. If you can improve your profits 10% by extinguishing all competitors, that is a nice bonus for the execs and nice boost for the stock for the next 5 years.
    - cyrialize 4y ago
      Gotcha, that all makes sense. Thank you for your response and being patient with me! > Companies will be trying to pocket huge profits for sure, but for themselves not for the collective. Definitely makes sense. Like a companies could work together to maintain a price point, but if a company can make so much more by undercutting - they'll do that.

crop_rotation 4y ago

This sounds nice in theory but not going to happen in practice. > Couldn't companies just standardize around a price and remain at that? This sounds like a cartel, which would be neither legal nor easy to do. All it takes is one rogue member who tries to gain more by breaking the cartel. (Similar to how FB/Meta didn't take part in the hiring cartel and kept paying high wages). The thing is, the current generation of Netflix style content flood is not too far from a world of totally auto generated content flood.

cyrialize 4y ago
Makes sense. The thing is though - I feel like there's already a ton of companies that do something similar or other things that are sketchy. Like how ISPs pick and choose what parts of an area they'll support and then you're stuck with only one ISP that you can choose from. This has been true in every place I've lived in. Another good example is Luxottica. They own the majority of sunglasses brands as well as Sunglasses Hut. When Oakley wanted to lower their prices dramatically, Luxoticca told them they have to keep their prices around their price points or they'll no longer sell the brand [0]. Companies do things all the time that are legally grey or illegal. Something being illegal won't stop a company from doing it. Again, I understand where you're coming from. For me when I saw "This sounds nice in theory but not going to happen in practice." it made me think of all these companies that are already doing sketchy things. I could be wrong and just not understand price points in companies. It's just difficult for me to envision a future where companies aren't taking advantage of AI to pocket huge profits in some way. [0]: "Oakley had tried to dispute their prices because of Luxottica's large marketshare, and Luxottica responded by dropping Oakley from their stores, causing their stock price to drop, followed by Luxottica's hostile take over of the company." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica
- crop_rotation 4y ago
  > Like how ISPs pick and choose what parts of an area they'll support and then you're stuck with only one ISP that you can choose from. This has been true in every place I've lived in. But being an ISP is capital intensive. You need to spend money to support a bigger area. The content providers want to win all. > Another good example is Luxottica. They own the majority of sunglasses brands as well as Sunglasses Hut. When Oakley wanted to lower their prices dramatically, Luxoticca told them they have to keep their prices around their price points or they'll no longer sell the brand [0]. This is different though. They can do it because they control the store. Nobody controls the content store. > It's just difficult for me to envision a future where companies aren't taking advantage of AI to pocket huge profits in some way. Companies will be trying to pocket huge profits for sure, but for themselves not for the collective. If you can improve your profits 10% by extinguishing all competitors, that is a nice bonus for the execs and nice boost for the stock for the next 5 years.
  - cyrialize 4y ago
    Gotcha, that all makes sense. Thank you for your response and being patient with me! > Companies will be trying to pocket huge profits for sure, but for themselves not for the collective. Definitely makes sense. Like a companies could work together to maintain a price point, but if a company can make so much more by undercutting - they'll do that.