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.

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.

    • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      171·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • Sanyanov@lemmy.worldEnglish
          71·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • gohixo9650English
          71·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • gohixo9650English
              3·
              1 year ago

              I’m genuinely baffled that you interpreted any of what I said as garnering sympathy for streaming platforms or their CEOs.

              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.

                • gohixo9650English
                  2·
                  1 year ago

                  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