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.
www.businessinsider.com
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.

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.

  • ConstipatedWatson@lemmy.worldEnglish
    132·
    1 year ago

    Moreover, not to take sides with Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Dropbox, Box, etc, but storing files costs money to maintain (there needs to be redundancy, every once in a while drives need to be replaced, they need to be cooled, etc), so we’d like it to be cheap, but doing all these things cannot be free for the hosting company.

    This is not to say they are jacking up prices, but that it cannot stay super cheap forever.

    Still, these services have been very handy so far, though I’m looking to see if the plan I have is still convenient compared to the competition

    • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      Seems to me like it would be more sustainable if it was super cheap for a large common library so a large userbase would maintain a continuous subscription, supporting a large continuous revenue, rather than signing-up and quitting intermittently.

      The media companies are ruining it for themselves by trying to squeeze more out of the users, which leads them not to stick with any of them.

      • _wintermute@lemmy.worldEnglish
        42·
        1 year ago

        Seems to me like it would be more sustainable if it was super cheap for a large common library so a large userbase would maintain a continuous subscription, supporting a large continuous revenue, rather than signing-up and quitting intermittently.

        Excuse me, but how would a tiny percentage of people profit off of this?! What is even the point if there are no shareholders to demand record profits year after year? /s

    • jmp242@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      42·
      1 year ago

      I still believe there’s a huge markup though. Look at premium Usenet providers - they store something like 1200 days of the posts (minus DMCA takedowns) which I think run something like hundreds of petabytes of data. Yet they can provide the service, including transfer, for what has to be a niche market at rates around $10 a month. Presumably there’s no “magic” or subsidies in what they’re doing. Yet what they’re doing is essentially what a big streaming service is doing.

      Now you might say - well, yea, $10 a month - right around streaming prices. Sure, but you figure in the larger scale to spread the costs over. For Box etc, they’re not even having the content costs that a Netflix would have (which I’ll admit is a lot, and might well make up for the difference between just storage and transfer of Usenet) which makes them comparable in some sense.

      Even if you say that well, Usenet gets multiple companies cooperating in their competition and storing the same data so they get some redundancy for “free”, compare to backup providers like Backblaze at $7 a month for unlimited storage (unless you’re on Linux, then f**k you, so I don’t use them, but still). Or Jottacloud that runs around $100 a year for 5TB soft cap 10TB hard cap.

      I still think there’s a mix of a lot of markup, and people not actually looking much into competition - I know people who don’t cross compare.