4 ms·
That way there's a financial incentive to make content easier to get by paying for it than by not paying for it. E.g. Spotify.
by unsupp0rted 3y ago
That way there's a financial incentive to make content easier to get by paying for it than by not paying for it.
E.g. Spotify.
- lockhouse 3y agoThe Spotify model doesn’t work for video content. A movie or even a TV show is way more expensive to produce than a song.
- rhino369 3y agoApple TV, google play, Amazon, and all the other video stores are no harder to use than Spotify. You don’t use them because it costs 6 bucks a pop. That’s a price motive not a service issue.
- dns_snek 3y ago> That’s a price motive not a service issue. I think anyone who has tried to figure out which movies & series to watch where and how to line up the billing cycles to move to the next service when you run out of content, will disagree. This is fundamentally a service issue, providers aren't competing on price or the quality of the service, but by monopolizing the availability of content which makes the user experience objectively worse.
- cabalamat 3y agoEven if these services were free, I would still prefer BitTorrent. Why? - It has a wider selection of content. I don't have to faff around looking for which content is available on which service. - There is no DRM. - Do these services even work on Linux? I know BitTorrent does.