3 ms·

> As a resident of the aforementioned political climate, I find their concerns to be reasonable. No. The lesson is that stuff like this is concerning what eve

> As a resident of the aforementioned political climate, I find their concerns to be reasonable. No. The lesson is that stuff like this is concerning what ever the "political climate". Anyway, you mainly don't want the gov in your vicinity to snoop. Non-local OS:es is probably advantageous in that regard if you choose to run proprietary code...

johnnyanmac 1y ago
>No. The lesson is that stuff like this is concerning what ever the "political climate". We say this, but many also want to entrust all our PC games to one closed source launcher. Or have videos/TV all on one subscription service. There's definitely a spectrum of benevolent and greedy dictators people draw lines on.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
  This is genuinely a real issue. It seems that most people cannot forsee an issue down the road unless it just happens to personally affect them after it took place ( ideally immediately after ). Valve is a good example, because while it is providing good value for the service it provides, it will not stay like that forever, but the environment it did set up will. And it will hurt once MBAs divvy up that kingdom. Just sayin' And obviously it is not just one arena, because it seems to be one glaring issue with human beings: they do not want to see the road ahead. And the ones they do are, at best, ignored.
- dspillett 1y ago
  > many also want to entrust all our PC games to one closed source launcher I think that is far more that people like the other closed source launchers less, and each launcher potentially adds it's own stream of notifications and adverts to their system so there is a cost to having multiple active even if the PC resource cost is practically undetectable. Furthermore if comparing game launches and related issues to political climates, I'd consider all the current closed source ones to be the same in those respects. Also we are not subject to several local political climates at any one time in that way (though we are when looking at a wider scale, of course). > Or have videos/TV all on one subscription service While there are other issues (each service tracking you etc.) this is more due to the fact that each service charges what we used to pay (in fact more, as in some cases prices have gone up by more than general inflation) for a single service that provided the same amount of content that they cared about. This doesn't really equate to trust on political climates (except where commercial greed is considered a political matter).
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    > this is more due to the fact that each service charges what we used to pay (in fact more, as in some cases prices have gone up by more than general inflation) for a single service that provided the same amount of content that they cared about. That is because the introductory prices were not 1 to 1 to the business’ existing revenue streams from cable and satellite transmission fees. Especially considering that before, there was a very limited supply of content restricted by time slots, and now you are buying far, far more on demand content without advertising breaks. And without contracts with a cable or satellite company. People are spoiled, and don’t appreciate how much easier and cheaper it is to watch or listen to most content than it was pre streaming services. One only needs to look at market cap graphs of the various media companies to see that streaming isn’t the cash cow people think it is.
    - dspillett 1y ago
      > That is because the introductory prices were not 1 to 1 to the business’ existing revenue streams from cable and satellite transmission fees. Bad pricing descisions are a them problem, not a me problem. But it isn't just pricing of individual services that is the issue, it is the separation of content amonst many services which is the companies gauging out what they can with no care for how inconvenient it is for the audience, at least those who don't turn back to the high seas. > without advertising breaks Despite the increasing prices, and the need for multiple servies at those prices, the adverts are very much coming back. All the conveniences of streaming are being taken away and companies are surprised that we aren't happy paying for that… > People are spoiled […] see that streaming isn’t the cash cow people think it is If they are, then they were spoiled by the companies being deliberately misleading to get them hooked in the first place. My level of sympathy is limited by their level of honesty and “prey I don't change the deal further” attitude. When the question is “but how did you expect us to make good business under those conditions?”, a perfectly valid answer is “you very much lead us to believe that you could”.
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        > When the question is “but how did you expect us to make good business under those conditions?” There is no “make good” since there was no contract about long term expectations. Even the media business’ leaders don’t know the future. Fewer eyeballs watching or listening to a specific piece of media means the cost has to be amortized over a smaller audience, meaning higher prices, or less quantity and quality of media. Price volatility should be expected in a changing business environment, and the media business got rocked by increasing supply (Meta/ByteDance/video games/on demand historic catalogs/etc) in the last 20 years, as evidenced by the change in their market values. It’s just business, so no one needs your sympathy, but it is also weird to see supposedly numerate people gripe about the effects of rapidly shifting supply and demand curves.
- rightbyte 1y ago
  Ye well I agree. I am guilty of using Steam to play some games on Linux with low effort. But as you note there is a spectrum.
- Xelbair 1y ago
  the issue is that incentive structure is different from some of those that you've mentioned. Steam makes the most money if it bridges interests of consumers and publishers together - they don't profit by screwing over the customer(either publishers or end users). Is depending on them a problem? yes, but least likely one. preferably you could move your digital licenses to any provider you want. Meanwhile subscription services profit the most from enshittification, especially ones that offer 'free' access with ads, or different tiers. and this current issue isn't even about dependence on google - that's bad in itself - but about gigantic governmental overreach and step towards killing anonymity online under guise of protecting the children. It is even worse when you consider some EU countries already went after people when politicians got insulted online.

johnnyanmac 1y ago

>No. The lesson is that stuff like this is concerning what ever the "political climate". We say this, but many also want to entrust all our PC games to one closed source launcher. Or have videos/TV all on one subscription service. There's definitely a spectrum of benevolent and greedy dictators people draw lines on.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
This is genuinely a real issue. It seems that most people cannot forsee an issue down the road unless it just happens to personally affect them after it took place ( ideally immediately after ). Valve is a good example, because while it is providing good value for the service it provides, it will not stay like that forever, but the environment it did set up will. And it will hurt once MBAs divvy up that kingdom. Just sayin' And obviously it is not just one arena, because it seems to be one glaring issue with human beings: they do not want to see the road ahead. And the ones they do are, at best, ignored.
dspillett 1y ago
> many also want to entrust all our PC games to one closed source launcher I think that is far more that people like the other closed source launchers less, and each launcher potentially adds it's own stream of notifications and adverts to their system so there is a cost to having multiple active even if the PC resource cost is practically undetectable. Furthermore if comparing game launches and related issues to political climates, I'd consider all the current closed source ones to be the same in those respects. Also we are not subject to several local political climates at any one time in that way (though we are when looking at a wider scale, of course). > Or have videos/TV all on one subscription service While there are other issues (each service tracking you etc.) this is more due to the fact that each service charges what we used to pay (in fact more, as in some cases prices have gone up by more than general inflation) for a single service that provided the same amount of content that they cared about. This doesn't really equate to trust on political climates (except where commercial greed is considered a political matter).
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  > this is more due to the fact that each service charges what we used to pay (in fact more, as in some cases prices have gone up by more than general inflation) for a single service that provided the same amount of content that they cared about. That is because the introductory prices were not 1 to 1 to the business’ existing revenue streams from cable and satellite transmission fees. Especially considering that before, there was a very limited supply of content restricted by time slots, and now you are buying far, far more on demand content without advertising breaks. And without contracts with a cable or satellite company. People are spoiled, and don’t appreciate how much easier and cheaper it is to watch or listen to most content than it was pre streaming services. One only needs to look at market cap graphs of the various media companies to see that streaming isn’t the cash cow people think it is.
  - dspillett 1y ago
    > That is because the introductory prices were not 1 to 1 to the business’ existing revenue streams from cable and satellite transmission fees. Bad pricing descisions are a them problem, not a me problem. But it isn't just pricing of individual services that is the issue, it is the separation of content amonst many services which is the companies gauging out what they can with no care for how inconvenient it is for the audience, at least those who don't turn back to the high seas. > without advertising breaks Despite the increasing prices, and the need for multiple servies at those prices, the adverts are very much coming back. All the conveniences of streaming are being taken away and companies are surprised that we aren't happy paying for that… > People are spoiled […] see that streaming isn’t the cash cow people think it is If they are, then they were spoiled by the companies being deliberately misleading to get them hooked in the first place. My level of sympathy is limited by their level of honesty and “prey I don't change the deal further” attitude. When the question is “but how did you expect us to make good business under those conditions?”, a perfectly valid answer is “you very much lead us to believe that you could”.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      > When the question is “but how did you expect us to make good business under those conditions?” There is no “make good” since there was no contract about long term expectations. Even the media business’ leaders don’t know the future. Fewer eyeballs watching or listening to a specific piece of media means the cost has to be amortized over a smaller audience, meaning higher prices, or less quantity and quality of media. Price volatility should be expected in a changing business environment, and the media business got rocked by increasing supply (Meta/ByteDance/video games/on demand historic catalogs/etc) in the last 20 years, as evidenced by the change in their market values. It’s just business, so no one needs your sympathy, but it is also weird to see supposedly numerate people gripe about the effects of rapidly shifting supply and demand curves.
rightbyte 1y ago
Ye well I agree. I am guilty of using Steam to play some games on Linux with low effort. But as you note there is a spectrum.
Xelbair 1y ago
the issue is that incentive structure is different from some of those that you've mentioned. Steam makes the most money if it bridges interests of consumers and publishers together - they don't profit by screwing over the customer(either publishers or end users). Is depending on them a problem? yes, but least likely one. preferably you could move your digital licenses to any provider you want. Meanwhile subscription services profit the most from enshittification, especially ones that offer 'free' access with ads, or different tiers. and this current issue isn't even about dependence on google - that's bad in itself - but about gigantic governmental overreach and step towards killing anonymity online under guise of protecting the children. It is even worse when you consider some EU countries already went after people when politicians got insulted online.