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.
Piracy is a service and pricing issue. Plenty of people willing to pay, proven by the fact the streaming services were so successful in the first place. They’re just not willing to take substantial pay hikes when they’re going hungry.
No, piracy is an entitlement issue.
Streaming services are still successful, that’s why they’re able to raise the prices. But most of them have been operating at a loss for a long long time to drive user adoption. This is the part where people have to decide if they’re willing to pay what it actually costs.
You are not entitled to this media. These companies don’t owe you anything.
…what is that supposed to be?
deleted by creator
WTF is a soyjak
You are become soyjak: You soyjak now son.
deleted by creator
How I imagine your brain works based on your previous comment.
You think my brain works…like a windmill?
Piracy is a capitalism problem.
People don’t pay what it actually costs, people pay that + the revenues the company brings home. And that’s a lot now.
Operating at a loss is a standard practice that is not only meant to drive user adoption, but to (whoops!) remove competition with smaller bags to pay losses from. So we end up with a few services that do whatever they want.
This is not okay.
boo-hoo-hoo poor mega corps, I’m pretty sure the CEOs of these companies were paying by their own money the price difference of the true cost and the decreased subscription price of all the customers and they will walk out poorer. Not with millions in their pockets.
I’m genuinely baffled that you interpreted any of what I said as garnering sympathy for streaming platforms or their CEOs. They don’t need your sympathy, nor does it have anything to do with what I said.
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.
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.
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
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.
yes, this is what I’m doing. So, what is your point?