this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
634 points (98.6% liked)
memes
9681 readers
3715 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
every fucking company wanted to dip their toes into the streaming service cash pool and now they pay the price, unpopular opinion but a tripoly like system that exists with music is the way to go.
Spotify, Apple music are big ones with YouTube Music lagging 5 behind due to the 50th rebranding and there is TIDAL for those who want better quality audio.
similarly Movie/tv show streaming should be limited to a few companies competing with basically the same catalog.
but it won't happen, so whatever, I also don't much care, I have my own plex server
I think advocating for more big tech monopolies is a bad idea, period.
There's already zero competition because most shows are tied to a specific service. Real competition comes when you can get The Office on your platform of choice.
I agree. If they ran themselves more like the music streaming apps, by maintaining similar content libraries, all this competition would be great.
I said tripoly, not monopoly.
Disagree. I'd argue that the companies releasing the movies shouldn't be the same ones running the streaming services. It would mean they can't double-dip, and they're encouraged to be on as many services as possible
I think that would come as a natural result, or rather could be enforced by law, younkinda have to remove these exclusivity bullshit deals for the sake of the customer.
It's actually a relatively common idea! A great example is many countries forcefully separate the Internet providers and the companies that own the lines themselves. It means the ISPs share lines and are in competition with every other ISP, and the companies that own the lines are incentivizes to build as many, bigger cables as possible and onboard as many ISPs as possible. It's honestly a great system
Bad take. Spotify shafts artists very hard and rips off users frequently. The only reason they haven't enshittified yet is because they are free from the interest rate mania going on in the US (they are a EU based company) and their actual customers are the music labels, not the final listener. So the final power is in the hands of the music executives not Spotify themselves, unlike with US tech giants that hold all the power against regular citizens. Look at what they want to do with podcasts for a glimpse of their future potential for enshittification.
how are users ripped off?
It could work. Say the steaming platform takes a 10-15% cut for servers, staff etc. The rest of the user's $10/month flat fee get divided up to the artists based on listening time.