It’s not even surprising anymore platforms do this & act all Pikachu face why piracy is spiking

Netflix & all these streaming platforms have completely lost touch & they will lose more customers in the long run

To quote Gabe Newell on Piracy

“We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate’s service is more valuable.”

  • sloppy_diffuser@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    145
    ·
    7 months ago

    I accidentally pirate crap I have legitimate access to because I can’t be bothered to figure out which damn platform its on. I have access to quite a few through work due to my industry at no out of pocket costs.

    The times I try to actually search for something, it’ll be listed on multiple platforms but 0 to 1 of those platforms will actually have what I’m looking for included with the subscription forcing me to manually check each one.

    It is easier to just pirate.

  • cobra89@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Cable TV exists

    Customers hate it and people start pirating

    Netflix comes around, other streaming services

    People happy, piracy goes down

    Streaming services go back to the way cable was, increased prices, reduced content, started bundling shit you don’t want.

    Customers start pirating again

    Surprised Pikachu face

    • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      7 months ago

      Maybe if we put ads in and take away the ability to download content foe offline use?

      • snownyte@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        7 months ago

        NO! I’ve got something better!

        We make the ads guilt you into using ad blockers! Then we pepper your active streaming with ADs every 30 seconds! YOU WILL BUY! YOU WILL CONSOOME!

    • RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Netflix comes around, other streaming services

      The (admittedly inevitable) appearance of other streaming services was shit already since with it came exclusive content.

  • darkphotonstudio@beehaw.org
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    7 months ago

    I despise ads. I can’t even bring myself to watch Netflix or Amazon Prime. If there is advertising, it ain’t worth it, no matter how cheap.

    • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      7 months ago

      There’s not enough of us, but I still don’t care. I refuse to pay to watch ads. Also, I had Prime and they wouldn’t let me watch high def with firefox on Linux, so even though I paid for it, I had to hit the high seas to watch content in high def.

      • businessfish@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 months ago

        There’s not enough of us, but I still don’t care. I refuse to pay to watch ads.

        i had this conversation with my dad recently about how shitty everything is now with ads etc, and his response boiled down to “i don’t care enough”. sucks to see people being complacent in being subject to greedy corporate whims. as much as i want people with that mindset to care, i have no idea how to effectively argue against “i don’t care”.

    • Tregetour@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Mass market subscription services won’t offer ad-free precisely because of the mass market exposure available to advertisers. You need to look to niche services instead, where a critical proportion of subscribers (say 30%) won’t tolerate ads as opposed to 1%. Maintaining an ad-free option in such a case is basic business sense. Not only that, you’ll find the ads-on tiers are more respectful of people’s attention and intellect when it comes to ad content and presentation.

  • cerement@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    7 months ago

    very much a convenience factor – Apple broke the MP3 sharing scene with the simplicity (at the time) of iTunes – video streaming started out simple but now it’s turned into cable TV, trying to find out which service is streaming a particular show, if it’s region-locked, or gated behind a premium upgrade, or just been dropped completely, or two services are still arguing over who gets the rights, or find out all the seasons are on one service except one season is on another service …

    • viking@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      Was iTunes popular outside of the US? Everyone I know hated they intrusive software and DRM that prevented you from playing the songs elsewhere. Don’t think I know a single person who actually purchased music there.

      • Septian
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        I did, back in… 2005-6? Somewhere around there. I’m from the US, so the first part of your comment applies to me, but at the time iTunes let you put music from the CDs you owned into your collection, and made it very easy to load music onto an iPod. I was 16, with some of my first disposable income from my first job. Couldn’t get music easily from anything but CDs or iTunes (Or Kazaa/Limewire, but that’s a different story) at the time so it just made sense. Around the time I realized I was locked into the platform by my purchases I stopped buying there and started streaming or buying CDs again.

      • sulunia@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Not from US. iTunes wasn’t even considered/known as an option here, let alone having people using it.

      • Feersummendjinn@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        (Not US). I was burnt by Sony’s Mini disc DRM BS, so when iTunes came along I recognised the slimy DRM and steered well clear so much so I have never owned an apple device much less bought music from them.

  • Doubleohdonut@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Dear Netflix, I’ve been a loyal customer since 2013. I’ve been perfectly happy with our arrangement. YOU are the one terminating our contract, not me. It seems you’d prefer to get rid of a happy, paying customer in the hopes you can somehow persuade them to embrace a higher cost or shittier experience (ads). That’s a bold move Cotton. Buh-bye dons pirate hat

    YARR MATEYS

    • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      7 months ago

      AOL still has 1.5 million active monthly subscribers. People forget to cancel subscriptions all the time.

      Subscriptions are a great way to sell a service to someone who isn’t using it, and when they want to cancel it getting the spent money on something never used is generally impossible.

      IMO for something like a streaming service… if you don’t stream a minute of video in a month you shouldn’t have to pay anything.

    • cerement@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      thing is, most of us should of known, they pulled this same crap back when they tried forcing everyone to drop the physical discs and switch to streaming only …

  • Evilsandwichman [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Guys running the one platform be like “they’re pirating our show,” other guy hosting a different platform be like “no, in this region it’s us hosting that show so it’s us they’re pirating from,” third guy hosting another platform be like “next month it’s our platform that’ll be hosting it so it’ll be us they’re pirating from”, fourth guy hosting another platform be like “we’re the guys authorized to actually be selling that show in this region at this time, so they’re also pirating from us”, fifth guy also hosting another platform be like “wait, they’re also pirating this show only we’re authorized to stream but we don’t offer our service in that country”

    Pirate be like “I host everything”

    (Not justifying it, just saying Gabe was right)

    • Tregetour@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Gabe is right, but what a lot us fail to realize in Lemmyland is that it increasingly doesn’t matter. $BigCorp is spending hard to turn it into a technology issue.

  • DrummXYBA@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Because i aint spending 3 figures a month on 5+ different sports streaming services to follow one team. Simple.

  • wahming@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Infamous implies somebody is famous in a negative way. If anything, Gabe is a shining example that should be upheld.

    • Ixoid@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      “Infamous” - that means more than famous!

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I think in this example it could go either way, depending on who is viewing it.

      Regular people would say he’s famous.

      People running streaming platforms and other big corpos (especially Tim Sweeny) might say he’s infamous.

    • shastaxc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s infamous among big business execs. It’s famous for everyone else.

  • burgersc12@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    They have billions of dollars i have hundreds. I’m sure they’ll survive me not giving them any of my hard earned money

  • fernandu00@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    7 months ago

    The only thing that keeps me with subscriptions is the cartoons my daughter watches, because they are hard to find dubbed in my language (Portuguese). It’s still more convenient to subscribe than try to find the dubbed cartoons online. For everything I watch I use my arr stack.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Depending on her age of course… But you can find SRT (subtitle) files for literally almost everything, often in dozens of languages. They’re super tiny too since it’s basically just a txt file

    • Banzai51@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      There are still plenty of good deals in streaming if you have shifted to on-demand. If you want live TV or sports, they’re out to gouge the fuck out of you. Luckily my Wife came around to on-demand only and an antenna. Of course, they’re trying hard to take away the antenna option from everyone with ATSC 3.0.

    • Itsamelemmy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Edit: I see now the article is about Australia. And the price is higher, but converting to USD the new price is still less than US $15.49 which I feel is fair. It costs me about $13.50/month in electricity for plex.

      How is the standard plan a bad value? It’s $15.49 for 1080p no ads. I dropped 4k a while ago because they went stupid on the price, and I will never use ad supported. If they made the ad tier free, I’d still pay the $15.49/month. Standard plan hasn’t been hit with the last several price increases, which is why I still think it’s a good value, and why I’m still subscribed.

      I’m sure with the way things are going Netflix will end up pushing me away eventually, but they haven’t yet. Dropping standard would cause me to cancel. I also have the Disney/Hulu bundle for $20 and plex for anything else. I could easily get anything on Netflix on plex.

        • Itsamelemmy
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          There is a pretty big gap between ad supported and standard. Wonder if ads actually makes up for the difference or if it’s just under priced to push people towards it. But seeing as ads are like cancer to me I don’t even consider that tier as existing. So 15.49 1080p 2 screen, or 22.49 I think for 4k 4 screens. I sit far enough away that I don’t notice the benefits of 4k and don’t need the extra screens so I just judge the value from the content and price. Honestly I’d rather just have everything on plex instead of jumping between services, but some stuff that family watches is hard to find. Sonarr has probably 100+ episodes of reality TV crap that won’t download as no seeders.

            • Gorgritch_Umie_Killa@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              7 months ago

              Wonder if ads actually makes up for the difference or if it’s just under priced to push people towards it.

              I reckon you guys are on the right track with your comments. Something to add in relation to why streaming services are introducing an ad tier. Introducing adverts introduces variable pricing for the streaming services. Meaning they can earn the same base rate, but for say the next season of Bridgerton, or one of their other really popular shows they can make a kind of ‘super profit’ by selling the ad space on top of their base rate per subscriber account.

  • huf [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    i dont think they’ve lost touch, they’ve never been in touch. this behavior is apparently what produces the biggest profits for the next quarter, so they’ll do it until they drive the platform into the ground, then just start another one and repeat

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    7 months ago

    Gee, we’ve tried taking content away, raising prices, injecting adverts and forcing them to use our crappy clients.

    Why are people turning to piracy?

    Advertising and lobbying are the only thing these people know how to do.

    • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Not to mention removing features, like Netflix removing the ability to download media.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        If only there was a way for media to exist as a file.

        Alas, it’s just not possible.