And then scroll shit loads of ads on insta
Comment on The moment we've all been waiting for: you now can have targeted ads on your 2k smartfridge
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 16 hours ago
The crazy thing is that most people don’t care. They will calmly close all the popup ads, obediently sit through YT ads and happily click on sponsored links on reddit. I know one guy who will close and re-open YT app to skip an add. Sometimes he has to do it 10 times in a row before the ad skips but he still thinks it’s justifies using YT app. People are weird.
HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 hours ago
fonix232@fedia.io 14 hours ago
I feel incredibly split on ads.
On one hand the incessant need to market things can be actually positive, offsetting service expenses, allowing things to be cheaper. Streaming is a perfect example of this, as people don't seem to realise just how expensive it is to maintain the infrastructure for it compared to traditional cable infrastructure, not to mention keeping the apps maintained and bugfixed etc., and then we haven't even talked about things like content licencing fees, residuals, and so on. Residuals alone mean that a single user can stream enough in just one month to "spend" their whole annual subscription fee on a single actor's residuals (this is technically unlikely, as one would need to stream a singular TV show or movie 24/7 for 30 days, but still possible).
And obviously people want to pay less. The least possible, that is. Netflix at $5.99 was a steal. Disrupting cable, globally. But that price was also only possible because of various venture capitalists investing heavily in Netflix, which allowed them to pay for the service mostly from that money, and keep prices low to acquire more users. The recent hikes (all the way up to what, $20?) are the result of venture capital drying up, as Netflix went from a market-shaker startup to revenue generating machine. Which is the point of capitalism, isn't it? Take an ide and make profit/revenue off it.
So how do you offset these increases? By involving a third party who's willing to pay you, in return for inserting their service into yours, essentially providing your userbase to them. This would mostly be... Advertisers. Marketing.
The problem is that advertising is a cutthroat business, with intense (and incredibly dumb) KPIs to fulfill. For which they need targeting, for which they need data. And this constant crusade for absolutely pinpointed ads that result in the most sales is what's making it such a disgusting business. It's not enough to shove ads in your face, those ads HAVE to be perfectly tailored to you, and for that, every smidge of information will be utilised against you.
And this is where I'm torn. On one hand, taking these fuckers' money to make services we do want, more affordable, is great. On the other hand, them wanting to know literally everything about us, and weaponising it against us, is fucking disgusting.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 13 hours ago
They are not showing ads for fun. They are showing them to sell stuff. People save $5 on Netflix and then spend $1000 on stupid shit they saw in the ads. Paying more for content without ads lets you escape the consumerist mindset and save money long term. Of course majority of people don’t want that. They are hooked on quick dopamine from buying another toy on Amazon and ads help them find new shit to buy. Other people simply can’t afford to avoid ads and are constantly brainwashed by then into buying one brand over another. Yes, I guess they do get cheap content in exchange but I still find it sad. The entire industry could die tomorrow and we would loose nothing of value.
fonix232@fedia.io 12 hours ago
Oh I fully agree with you. Marketing in general is one of the most evil business segments - only a notch above phone scammers, really. All of it is edged out not to actually market a product but to sell it to you no matter what. Doesn't matter if you need it, or if you can afford it, or if what they say about the product is true or not, the goal is to sell sell sell. Nothing else matters but taking your money.
Taldan@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Streaming is a perfect example of this, as people don’t seem to realise just how expensive it is to maintain the infrastructure for it compared to traditional cable infrastructure
Much of the cost of streaming for platforms like Netflix, and especially YouTube, are due to the need to centralize it to allow for more data collection. The cost of streaming also gets overblown, by a lot. Companies like Google and Netflix are spending huge amounts of money trying to build out new features and offerings, like games, that make it look like maintaining the streaming service is far more expensive than it is
But that price was also only possible because of various venture capitalists investing heavily in Netflix
Netflix has never needed to rely on venture capital for their streaming platform. Netflix has made a gross profit every quarter since 2011 when this data starts. They have also had a net income all but one of those quarters, which is absolutely insane for a new tech company investing that much in R&D + licensing
The recent hikes (all the way up to what, $20?) are the result of venture capital drying up
No. They’re the result of perpetually increasing profit margins. They were very profitable before the price hikes. Their expenses have gone up far slower than their revenue. It’s simply extracting more wealth without providing additional value
as Netflix went from a market-shaker startup to revenue generating machine
It’s a bit pedantic, but Netflix wasn’t a startup when they got into streaming. They were an existing business that was profitable to fund their pivot to a technology platform
So how do you offset these increases?
Netflix has had an operating income (revenue - operating expenses) of $12.6B over the past 12 months. With ~300M subscribers, that’s about $3.50 per subscriber per month. Subscription prices are much lower in most countries than in the US. For the ~80M US subscribers, that is probably $6 in profit. The $5 cheaper ad tier is probably about what we’d expect their prices to be if they had simply continued to make a couple billion a year in profit. Also keep in mind they would probably get and retain more subscribers with a lower price, and their increased operating expenses includes them building out tons of stupid mobile games most people don’t want, and one-off necessary expenses like building out their original content capabilities
Note: This last bit is doing some napkin math and is subject to error. I didn’t feel like digging deep enough into their financials to get more exact numbers (such as the average subscription price for the rest of the world)
TL;DR – Much of the price increases and addition of ads can be attributed to increasing profit margins, not increased operating costs
rem26_art@fedia.io 16 hours ago
My parents bought an Echo Show that they pretty much just ignore nowadays, except to set a timer or tell them the weather every once in a while. All it does all day is sit there and show ads for random stuff. It makes a terrible clock because its too busy showing ads half the time to actually show you the time in a font you can read from across the room. I know you can ask it to tell you the time, but thats so much slower than just looking at a normal clock
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Introducing… the Echo Watch. Never be without your echo devices. Ever. We will murder you if you try to leave us. Also prime costs more now and you need an additional subscription.
Amazon. Because fuck you~.