Tech's broken promises: Streaming is now just as expensive and confusing as cable. Ubers cost as much as taxis. And the cloud is no longer cheap.
Tech's broken promises: Streaming is now just as expensive and confusing as cable. Ubers cost as much as taxis. And the cloud is no longer cheap.
Some tech is getting pricier and looking a lot like the older services it was supposed to beat. From video streaming to ride-hailing and cloud computing.
Sooner or later, everything old is new again.
We may be at this point in tech, where supposedly revolutionary products are becoming eerily similar to the previous offerings they were supposed to beat.
Take video streaming. In search of better profitability, Netflix, Disney, and other providers have been raising prices. The various bundles are now as annoyingly confusing as cable, and cost basically the same. Somehow, we're also paying to watch ads. How did that happen?
Amazon Prime Video costs $9 a month and there are no ads. Oh, except when Thursday Night Football is on. Then there are loads of ads. And Amazon is discussing an ad-supported version of the Prime Video service, according to The Wall Street Journal. That won't be free, I can assure you.
Paramount+ with Showtime costs $12 a month and the live TV part has commercials and a few other shows include "brief promotional interruptions," according to the company. Translation: ads.
Streaming was supposed to be better and cheaper. I'm not sure that's the case anymore. This NFL season, like previous years, I will record games on OTA linear TV using a TiVo box from about 2014. I'll watch hours of action every weekend for free and I'll watch no ads. Streaming can't match that.
You can still stream without ads, but the cost of this is getting so high, and the bundling is so complex, that it's getting as bad as cable — the technology that streaming was supposed to radically improve upon.
The Financial Times recently reported that a basket of the top US streaming services will cost $87 this fall, compared with $73 a year ago. The average cable TV package costs $83 a month, it noted. A 3-mile Uber ride that cost $51.69
A similar shift is happening in ride-hailing. Uber has been on a quest to become profitable, and it achieved that, based on one measure, in the most-recent quarter. Lyft is desperately trying to keep up. How are they doing this? Raising prices is one way.
Wired's editor at large, Steven Levy, recently took a 2.95-mile Uber ride from downtown New York City to the West Side to meet Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. When asked to estimate the cost of the ride, Khosrowshahi put it at $20. That turned out to be less than half the actual price of $51.69, including a tip for the driver.
"Oh my God. Wow," the CEO said upon learning the cost.
I recently took a Lyft from Seattle-Tacoma International airport to a home in the city. It cost $66.69 with driver tip. As a test, I ordered a taxi for the return journey. Exact same distance, and the cab was stuck in traffic longer. The cost was $70 with a tip. So basically the same.
And the cab can be ordered with an app now that shows its location, just like Uber and Lyft. So what's the revolutionary benefit here? The original vision was car sharing where anyone could pick anyone else up. Those disruptive benefits have steadily ebbed away through regulation, disputes with drivers over pay, and the recent push for profitability. Cloud promises are being broken
Finally, there's the cloud, which promised cheaper and more secure computing for companies. There are massive benefits from flexibility here: You can switch your rented computing power on and off quickly depending on your needs. That's a real advance.
The other main benefits — price and security — are looking shakier lately.
Salesforce, the leading provider of cloud marketing software, is increasing prices this month. The cost of the Microsoft 365 cloud productivity suite is rising, too, along with some Slack and Adobe cloud offerings, according to CIO magazine.
AWS is going to start charging customers for an IPv4 address, a crucial internet protocol. Even before this decision, AWS costs had become a major issue in corporate board rooms.
As a fast-growing startup, Snap bought into the cloud and decided not to build it's own infrastructure. In the roughly five years since going public, the company has spent about $3 billion on cloud services from Google and AWS. These costs have been the second-biggest expense at Snap, behind employees.
"While cloud clearly delivers on its promise early on in a company's journey, the pressure it puts on margins can start to outweigh the benefits, as a company scales and growth slows," VC firm Andreessen Horowitz wrote in a blog. "There is a growing awareness of the long-term cost implications of cloud."
Some companies, such as Dropbox, have even repatriated most of their IT workloads from the public cloud, saving millions of dollars, the VC firm noted.
What about security? Last month, Google, the third-largest cloud provider, started a pilot program where thousands of its employees are limited to using work computers that are not connected to the internet, according to CNBC.
The reason: Google is trying to reduce the risk of cyberattacks. If staff have computers disconnected from the internet, hackers can't compromise these devices and gain access to sensitive user data and software code, CNBC reported.
So, cloud services connected to the internet are great for everyone, except Google? Not a great cloud sales pitch.
If you subscribe to all the services, it can be expensive. But it's still FAR more flexible than traditional cable, since you can pick and choose which services you want on any given month, and cancel when you've binged all the shows. The shows that don't shove ads down your throat every 5 minutes, BTW.
This just reads like an ad for cable companies. "Please stay with the worst customer service in the country, the competition is just as expensive if you ignore how people actually use it!"
Last month, Google, the third-largest cloud provider, started a pilot program where thousands of its employees are limited to using work computers that are not connected to the internet, according to CNBC.
That's not even close to accurate reporting.
They removed internet access from engineers' build machines, not from peoples' workstations.
Builds at Google are reproducible and do not require external network access. See Bazel.
Uber was unsustainably underpriced in order to gain market share. Pricing is temporary; the core benefit as a consumer was always the ability to request one from anywhere using an app (where you also paid) and have them come directly to you instead of needing to hail one. Taxi companies added that ability and now everything is better. There's no reason why the approximate cost should vary much, outside of limited promotions. An Uber, a Lyft, and a taxi should cost roughly the same. Why wouldn't they? Perpetual VC-funded pricing wasn't what we were promised; the promise was convenient ordering and stress-free payments.
I find these kinds of posts to be so entitled and pessimistic. Yeah, prices have definitely gone up, but the tech solutions are almost unilaterally better than their replacements.
- Streaming: you don’t actually have to subscribe to every single streaming service, and most are dead simple to cancel (good luck canceling your cable service). Most are very lax about sharing passwords, or have cheaper ad-based tiers if you want to save a bit.
- Uber: you can summon a comfortable car that seats up to 6 and can set your destination as well as multiple stops, and have it pull right up to where you are, often in 5 minutes or less, without needing to talk to or hail someone. In the US prices have crept up but in other countries it’s still a bargain compared to taxis, which are sometimes run like a racket.
- Cloud: I don’t even know what this is doing here since we are talking consumer tech and this is more about B2B services. For the consumer the cloud is still dirt cheap and transformative, and doesn’t even have a “back in my day” equivalent.
Everything is amazing and no one is happy.
My mother was a journalist, her heyday was in the 80s-early 00s, she covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as the wars in the former Yugoslavia. We had a long phone call last weekend where we ended up talking about Twitter, the online service that changed journalism. I explained to her that the current owner put a foot in his mouth and was forced to buy it at a higher price than the initial valuation while grumbling that it was not turning profit, she guffawed at this. She said, "When has the media ever made profit??"
The only difference between old media and new online media is that online media also sell user data to make more revenue (along with old time subscription models and selling ad spaces), and even with this they're still not making profit.
Same rodeo, new clowns.
These are three topics that people love to focus on price against traditional services without looking any deeper.
Streaming is only just as expensive as cable if you subscribe to a bunch of them, but if you pick and choose, start and stop, it is cheaper. Further, it is a better experience. You can watch what you want, when you want. You don't need an annoying DVR setup, etc. The experience is better, even if you do choose to pay the same.
For Uber and Lyft, I don't use them because they are cheaper; I use them because they are better than traditional taxis. Seriously, how many people who say they aren't better than taxis have even used taxis heavily while traveling? Using taxis sucks, except possibly around airports or in the rare city you can walk outside and hail a cab. Outside of that you often have to call in, wait for an extended time with no ETA, etc. Lyft and Uber are a better experience, especially when you are outside major tourist or travel hubs.
Finally, cloud is more expensive, but gets you all sorts of benefits. Those benefits may or may not be worth the cost depending on you or your org, but it is not 1-1 to running on prem. On AWS you can trivially automate events across the entire ecosystem of services, run serverless infrastructure, etc. There are many great use cases for spending the money on the cloud, and most organizations should have a hybrid approach.
Sorry, end rant, but I always get tired of the false equivalence of these three things and the tunnel vision on price.
So for half these things, early on the costs of doing business were carried by other people. Streaming services relied on studios to produce content, and Uber relied on drivers to carry maintenance costs and downtime cost.
Now Netflix is a full studio and all the other services that are competitive have original content. Uber drivers are unionized.
Cloud services are fine for set low computation things, but once you scale past a certain point keeping your own IT staff busy is easy, and they provide a tailor made infrastructure.
The point on the cloud is quite arbitrary to be honest. Yeah aws is coming to charge for extra unused ipv4 addresses, because there's a damn shortage of them and it's literally impossible to "produce more". The solution is ipv6 but the infrastructure is not ready yet, which is embarrassing by now.
The point about security seems so god damn stupid. If you can work with limited outside access, it's going to be more secure, the point of cloud being more secure is not to compare to your personal pc, it's to compare to pcs that you expose to the exterior. In fact, Internet access and cloud servers don't necessarily need to be the same thing, when people talks about Internet access they usually mean the web, and servers talk with each other with a myriad of other protocols that are not https.
I'm amazed I even read half of that, and even more that it was such uninformed bullshit.
What's even the point of this post, I'm clearly not it's target audience.
Honestly, given the current fragmentation of Streaming Service, it has become completely anti-consumer.
People don't like to spend so much money just to watch one or two shows from one platform. They like the concept of AIO platforms and being on-demand & ad-free. All three of them have been broken.
I've ditched both and have gone mostly back to physical media. Even standard 1080p Blu-ray from 2007 look better than any streaming app as the bitrate is significantly higher, and you can find used Blu Ray for super cheap right now. New releases are a little expensive but there are still rental options
Streaming and storage on my file server remains stable in pricing
I got to point out that ipv4 addresses are a serious supply/demand issue. I’m so fucking glad that they cost real $$$ just because I hate dealing with NAT and ipv6 will fix a lot of that, immediately.
Don't forget plastic money, when we're promised to use "free" debit cards. There is always a fee, and one way or another we have to pay it. Problem I see is that there is more and more difficult to use cash. All except one cash machines were removed from where I live. The one's left behind 80% of time doesn't work. We're in tech "utopia" trap.
This is why, these days, I pay for just for Tidal as my only streaming service. Sill decently priced and convenient. I gave up my movie/shows streaming services because it just got too costly and fragmented, and using one for a month and then canceling to swap to another the next month is just annoying and not something most people would be willing to do.
So I stream my movies and shows through 3rd parties, such as movie-webb.app, himovies and fmovies. I still torrent anime though.
I suspect more and more people will search for illegal streams first before resorting to torrents. Or, like my parents, go back to cable. 🤷
Plus there is Subscription fatigue. I've gotten tired of all the damn subscriptions. Might go back to buying 4K blu-rays though for my favorites; physical media does always win.
Everything always raises the prices to the amount people will pay for them. It takes time, but nobody will ever leave money on the table.
Greed. It's nothing new.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Paramount+ with Showtime costs $12 a month and the live TV part has commercials and a few other shows include "brief promotional interruptions," according to the company.
The Financial Times recently reported that a basket of the top US streaming services will cost $87 this fall, compared with $73 a year ago.
Some companies, such as Dropbox, have even repatriated most of their IT workloads from the public cloud, saving millions of dollars, the VC firm noted.
Last month, Google, the third-largest cloud provider, started a pilot program where thousands of its employees are limited to using work computers that are not connected to the internet, according to CNBC.
If staff have computers disconnected from the internet, hackers can't compromise these devices and gain access to sensitive user data and software code, CNBC reported.
Disclosure: Mathias Döpfner, CEO of Business Insider's parent company, Axel Springer, is a Netflix board member.
The original article contains 877 words, the summary contains 150 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!