this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
1322 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
57455 readers
3990 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
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
It's like no longer having one cheap and convinient way of seeing content makes people rather pirate things than paying 7 different platforms each one more expensive than the next and all of them trying to mess with you and your wallet in new and unexpected ways.
Cable sucked for other reasons and I sure wouldn't have ever really called it cheap. There's a reason people wanted to get away from it in the first place. I've been seeing a lot of pro cable nonsense going around and it would be such a pity if the streaming situation devolved back to putting up with the predatory nature of cable-like services.
I think OP is referring to the original streaming status quo, where Netflix was the only game in town, it cost under 15 bucks a month, and everybody licensed their back catalog to them rather than developing their own competing platforms.
It was illegal for companies to fully vertically integrate by owning production and distribution back then. A corrupt judge struck it down several years ago which put us into this mess. That's why theaters hadn't been owned by studios for a long time.
Also why Hulu had all that content: no one owner could run their own service explicitly.