6 ms·
Consumers do not exist so that companies can be profitable, and are not required to accept anything of the sort. What a vampiric, corporate lickspittle point o
by inopinatus 4y ago
Consumers do not exist so that companies can be profitable, and are not required to accept anything of the sort.
What a vampiric, corporate lickspittle point of view.
- cde-v 4y agoAlso it has been profitable for years
- dmonitor 4y agoAs the copyright holders (not creators, mind you) realized the vast worth of their IP, licensing costs started to put the pressure on Netflix.
- the_af 4y agoI'm sure that's true, but then we've found the actual problem! And it's not viewers sharing their accounts with their families.
- tekknik 4y agoIf more users have accounts then licensing costs are less of a burden to Netflix.
- the_af 4y agoYes, but the real problem are rising licensing costs, not account sharing.
- tekknik 4y agoThat has always been a burden. If customers want something then the person selling it sets the price.
- the_af 4y agoThat's just a description for Netflix predatory tactics. Their narrative is "against account sharing" (which was historically allowed by them) but the problem is actually "rising licensing costs", so their actual enemy is not users but content owners. The narrative is important. It's important to reframe this as Netflix going against the less powerful side. Also, I celebrate this has already cost them 1 million users in Spain alone. I hope this backfires on Netflix globally.
- unixhero 4y agoLickspittle??? :)
- otikik 4y agoI would even object to calling people “consumers”, only because the conversation involves a (potential) service. It’s like calling us “bipeds” when we talk about us on a shoe-making context.
- radlad 4y agoWell, when the shoe fits...
- fzimmermann89 4y ago*shoes.
- misssocrates 4y agoIt goes both ways, does it not? Companies and their respective goods or service can't survive without being profitable.
- elliekelly 4y agoAmazon survived just fine without being profitable for something like two decades.
- bioemerl 4y agoI feel like we would all have been better off if Amazon had not been allowed to do this.
- elliekelly 4y agoI absolutely agree.
- reissbaker 4y agoInvestors are willing to put a premium on growth, even if it means the company is unprofitable (for certain definitions of unprofitable — you have to be convincing that you could be profitable, if only you stopped spending so much on growth). If you're unprofitable and losing users you're in trouble.
- bioemerl 4y agoGenerally a enterprise that is not profitable is using more resources than the value it creates and as a result the economy is better off if it goes under. This isn't just "things only deserve to exist if it makes someone money" this is "our system systemically discourages wasteful use of resources". Actors and such need to be paid. Their labor is a scare resource so if they are doing something that's not worth more than their time, they should generally be doing something else. If we all behaved otherwise society would slowly die as wealth got consumed to zero instead of increased with time.
- atmartins 4y agoan*
- Brendinooo 4y agoWe're talking about video here, nobody owes anyone anything. It's not anything remotely close to a basic necessity.
- kramerger 4y agoNo, you don't owe me anything. But if I stop buying your stuff maybe you will lower your prices and maybe stop investing in expensive stupid fantasy shows that everyone hates. I mean, I don't owe it to you to buy your crap either. It's a two way street.
- Brendinooo 4y ago> It's a two way street Yup, this is my point.