Technology

69891 readers

3345 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

715

Consumers are paying more than ever for streaming TV each month and analysts say there’s no reason for the companies to stop raising prices (finance.yahoo.com)

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

165 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Consumers are paying more than ever for streaming TV each month and analysts say there’s no reason for the companies to stop raising prices::Finding new subscribers in a saturated streaming video market isn't easy. And with legacy media companies desperate to recoup revenue declines in their linear TV businesses, the cost of your monthly plan is likely to keep rising.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I’m genuinely baffled that you interpreted any of what I said as garnering sympathy for streaming platforms or their CEOs.

then explain me why you mentioned the "operating at a loss" thing. What does it prove in your argument? What does this offer in the dialog and please explain me if the CEO of a said company which is "operating at a loss" walks out with millions in their pockets or not. And also what will happen in the owner of a small business which is also operating at a loss. Then compare these two "operating at a loss" and tell me if they are even slightly comparable.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The point is that the company has to be profitable. It's not complicated. The point of companies is to be profitable. If they're not profitable, they cease to exist, which isn't good for anyone. Those are the only options they have: become profitable or cease to exist. I know you people like to think money is just conjured into existence with magic but that's not the way anything works.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

you didn't manage to reply to any of the arguments above. You just spitted out some basic principles which all of us are aware of. I don't understand even why you bothered to type these since they also don't offer anything valuable in the conversation

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You just spitted out some basic principles which all of us are aware of.

Maybe "aware of" but have clearly demonstrated that you don't understand.

Listen, it's really an irrelevant point. It doesn't matter if they're a fucking Fortune 100 company charging $500/mo, nothing about that entitles you to the content they produce.

It's not food, it's not healthcare, it's not shelter, you're not being deprived of any sort of necessity, it's entertainment. Too expensive? Don't fuckin buy it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Don’t fuckin buy it.

yes, this is what I'm doing. So, what is your point?