3 ms·

Netflix UX has been falling year after year. Netflix is extremely profitable, its stock price droppings are due to our current system of expecting never ending

Netflix UX has been falling year after year. Netflix is extremely profitable, its stock price droppings are due to our current system of expecting never ending growth, not on business model sanity. It is way more threatened by having to produce its own content, or its new found shitty business practices (that tend to pile up) than account sharing. > Consider if all films had to try the 'Spotify model' which is to say it's all free with a few ads, the industry would be wiped out. or maybe not. Why would it? Blockbusters/Pop would survive because merchandise pays much more than tickets, it could even be better for them. More alternative stuff always had to deal with less funding, and limitations are what brings art forward. > if those movies were available at 'piratedmovies.com' without any IP laws the bad pirate bay still has an enormous catalog. And i never mentioned any ablishment of IP laws, just new laws to forbit DRM and its equivalents of restricting usage. I'm okish with mass sharing websites being forbidden, I'm not ok with a random joe not being able to share with his friends or have local copies. Or because of some stupid DRM, gets his SDD worn out, or not getting full quality on certain un"protected" OS/browser/cable. > people don't want to pay People pay for actual convenience, always did, always will. If you can't provide better service that a random project that can't even get funds legally, what does it tell about your business? Checkout icloud, plenty of profits, but you could just have your 2TB network disk at home, much cheaper overall, dropbox proved the concept, it just lacked integration, and it all rests on one thing: convinience. > physical goods can generally not be pirated! How does the 'economy' work for your Milk and Cereal producers? Just fine. it's about reproduction cost. digital goods are almost free to distribute in a small scale. > How does the 'economy' work for your Milk and Cereal producers? Just fine. So fine that without tax payers money they go broke. So fine that they have to destroy the goods to keep prices and subsidies where they want them. Nothing as cool as throwing away milk to not crash the market while getting subsidized to produce more milk. Food industry is the one most reliant on tax payer money and you dared to use it as an example. If media and entertainment are so goddamm important that you have to put so much effort protecting their ventures with DRM and lots of other bulshit, maybe just apply what we do with those "working economies": subsidize. Non violent civil disobedience vs abstract entities (ie corps, agencies, governments) is more than ok, most of the time is the only way, and power must be kept in check.

jasmer 3y ago
I'm sorry but this is upside down on every point. 1) Netflix UX is perfectly fine. You see the film, you click play - that's it. There is no argument to be made that a) it's bad or b) pirate.com couldn't duplicate it. The business model fluctuates but they and Disney+ will eke out a profit - but only because of anti-piracy. 2) "Why would it? Blockbusters/Pop" - it's completely glib to suggest that investors would back films with $100M price tags (or any price tag) if the films were available at 'pirate.com' for free, at any time. 3) "If you can't provide better service that a random project that can't even get funds legally, what does it tell about your business?" I don't think you're grasping the premise here: the 'cost' of the business is mostly the cost of content. Netflix has to pay for content, 'pirate.com' does not. It's a total misunderstanding of the economics to suggest that Netflix should be able to 'compete with pirate.com or die'. Getting Mp3s from iTunes was highly convenient - people preferred to not pay and so, the market for Mp3 evaporated, much like the market for films would evaporate. 4) "So fine that without tax payers money they go broke." Again, a complete misunderstanding of the analogy: markets for physical goods work mostly fine - your arguments about 'subsidies for milk' are completely besides the point. The point is: if physical goods could all be arbitrarily stolen, even at no cost to the producer, there would be no sales, and therefore no business. DRM enables content business to exist, otherwise, for the most part they would not. 5) "Non violent civil disobedience vs abstract entities" And there it is: it's ok to steal stuff because 'Social Justice'! You're just protecting yours and other people's rights! This is actually the moral flatulence at the heart of the argument, and it exemplifies the ridiculous hoops people will jump through to justify it. In IP culture, it's a theft of sorts, it's not the end of the world, but it is the end of content if there are no regs there. As far as we know - there are zero economies that product good content without some form of IP regs - until someone comes along and proves otherwise, this is roughly how we need to do it. Hopefully the EU will not lose their marbles over it.

jasmer 3y ago

I'm sorry but this is upside down on every point. 1) Netflix UX is perfectly fine. You see the film, you click play - that's it. There is no argument to be made that a) it's bad or b) pirate.com couldn't duplicate it. The business model fluctuates but they and Disney+ will eke out a profit - but only because of anti-piracy. 2) "Why would it? Blockbusters/Pop" - it's completely glib to suggest that investors would back films with $100M price tags (or any price tag) if the films were available at 'pirate.com' for free, at any time. 3) "If you can't provide better service that a random project that can't even get funds legally, what does it tell about your business?" I don't think you're grasping the premise here: the 'cost' of the business is mostly the cost of content. Netflix has to pay for content, 'pirate.com' does not. It's a total misunderstanding of the economics to suggest that Netflix should be able to 'compete with pirate.com or die'. Getting Mp3s from iTunes was highly convenient - people preferred to not pay and so, the market for Mp3 evaporated, much like the market for films would evaporate. 4) "So fine that without tax payers money they go broke." Again, a complete misunderstanding of the analogy: markets for physical goods work mostly fine - your arguments about 'subsidies for milk' are completely besides the point. The point is: if physical goods could all be arbitrarily stolen, even at no cost to the producer, there would be no sales, and therefore no business. DRM enables content business to exist, otherwise, for the most part they would not. 5) "Non violent civil disobedience vs abstract entities" And there it is: it's ok to steal stuff because 'Social Justice'! You're just protecting yours and other people's rights! This is actually the moral flatulence at the heart of the argument, and it exemplifies the ridiculous hoops people will jump through to justify it. In IP culture, it's a theft of sorts, it's not the end of the world, but it is the end of content if there are no regs there. As far as we know - there are zero economies that product good content without some form of IP regs - until someone comes along and proves otherwise, this is roughly how we need to do it. Hopefully the EU will not lose their marbles over it.