gohixo9650 @ gohixo9650 @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

2

Comments

157

Joined

2 yr. ago

I get your point. For me (and I suppose for some other people) works a bit different. When I'm not actively participating in a conversation, up/down vote is a quick way to show agreement/disagreement. I cannot upvote something that I complete disagree. However, in cases that I'm actively engaging, I don't use it as a punishment tool so I just abstain. Like here, I weren't downvoting you because it was an active ongoing conversation and I expressed myself by comments. You were actively engaging in good faith (I suppose) so it was fine. But at the same time I could not upvote either the comments in which I was finding myself disagreeing (I think I upvoted 1-2 at the end). However people are "passing-by" and up/downvote to show their view. Don't take it as your punishment. But also you cannot "demand" that since you wrote something that you believe contributes to a discussion everyone should also believe that your points were so well made that should be upvoted even though they disagree. By this logic we should upvote everything that is longer that 5 words.

you're overthinking it. There is not even a "global" karma like reddit. Your up/down-votes are not counting towards your "internet points". They are in a per-comment basis and they're a quick way to interact with opinions. Would you prefer everyone commenting "agree"/"disagree" ?

downvotes is just a way to show that you disagree with something. It is not there to punish you. People choose some topics to engage actively by participating in the comments while in some other topics they prefer to express their opinion just by agree/disagree (upvote/downvote). Now you call a whole community toxic just because not everyone agrees with you..

enlighten me then

and never go into any kind of depth about underlying causes and contributing factors.

sure, if you don't agree with what is being replied to you, then these are shallow comments. Your replies here were the deep analysis. Good job

I’m not completely following your train of thought with a “fake price,” though.

you said that they now needed to correct to the "real price" in terms that it is a price that will allow them not to operate at a loss. So the previous one was a "faked" (artificial) price, that they knew was below cost, however they chose to go with it in order to lure customers.

I'm not implying that they tried to scam anyone with "fake prices" if this is what you understood.

I don’t think we should underestimate the savvy programmers out there

you can't imagine how many programmers out there are living their life without adblocks. Even before this last month's shitshow

There are certainly consumers out there with this kind of mentality, but it’s a common sales strategy to lure new customers with a reduced subscription fee for the first months only. It evidently works, because businesses have been doing this long before SVOD services, or even the internet for that matter, existed.

Your claim that this is a tactic happening since for ever doesn't take into account the differences between subscription model and traditional businesses. In traditional businesses, yes, a business may decrease the prices in order to lure customers, but this was never their business model. This was limited time "get to know us". I don't think there was for example any supermarket operating at loss for 5 years before they decide to "ok, lets put the real prices on the shelves now".

I don’t think it’s fair to call this a fake audience, because these are real users of which a certain percentage will be retained.

of course it is a fake audience. The fact that some users will be retained doesn't make the 100% of the audience real. And also by fake audience it doesn't necessarily mean that the whole 100% of the audience is fake. However, when they present their numbers, and they claim that "because of piracy we lost 5 million subscribers" this is based on the 5 million subscribers who potentially would never be subscribers if they had their "real" price upfront, instead of a price in which they operate at loss.

However, when people are charged for piracy, they are charged based on imaginative loses who are based on a potential profit which would had been achieved if their 100% of customer base had been continuing paying a subscription which they would had never agreed paying if the price was not faked in order to attract them.

The free market effect will gradually resolve this as services that are all currently operating at a loss will correct their price models, which is what I believe is currently happening.

the free market will turn to the government to cover their losses and they will push for stricter anti piracy law enforcement. The free market evangelists just want a free to control market. I don't think they will be "ok, customers are leaving after our latest increase in price, then let's just decrease the price to get them back on board"

That can only be sustained for so long before the parent company will need to see it begin to generate a positive revenue stream. The most straightforward way to do that is to increase subscription fees. Furthermore, the number of subscribers of Paramount+, MGM+ or even Disney+ is certainly not trending towards “infinite growth.”

then their model is flawed. They sell something at loss in order to attract customers because they know that if they sell it at higher profit margins customers will not come. Customers are willing to buy it as long as it is in a price that they are willing to compromise at. So, when they raise their prices, customers realize that now it is above the price they are willing to pay and step out. Their model is based on hoping that the customers will forget or be bored to cancel a subscription that they cannot afford anymore. However it is a subscription that they wouldn't had been willing to buy in this price in the first place.

So, their initial market share and adoption rate was what it was because of the price of the subscription and the rate of price/value-of-product. Customers are not willing to pay double price and they wouldn't had paid it in the first place. They are not loosing customers. They are not loosing potential profit. They are basing their numbers in a faked artificial audience that opted in only because it was a good deal in the initial price.

And while the free market evangelists would argue that the market would self regulate, you know what will they in reality do? Ask the government for stricter enforcement of anti-piracy laws because huge loss . Loss based on nothing but their imagination of imaginative potential profit based on "if everyone was continuing buying our product with the same adoption rate we would had X billions. So since we don't have X billions, this is a loss". Great math skills and applying of logic.

If not, we can expect to see legal channels raising their prices again to cover the losses caused by piracy.

what a shitty take. Well, anyone who has better memory than only one month back can realize that the reason the people turned to piracy was that they raised their prices. There is no loss caused by piracy. They only missed potential gains. And the reason they raised their prices were not because they were loosing money. Was because they needed to "grow infinitely". If the free market evangelists are right, the free market will self regulate and the prices will go down in order to attract back the lost customers lol

as I see it, the problem in your statement is that while you mention you're pro-FOSS, you got overexcited by the claims of an unknown entity over technologies that you like and at the same time you have no source. Just promises. They could even be a startup that has just put all the buzzwords there while in fact on their code they don't do anything of that and they just use a centralized server with symetric encryption and have the symmetric key stored in the code. The app will look like it works till proven that it is not. As long as they don't want to publish their code, you getting overexcited (at least for me), is pointless.

There was an example with a startup that was doing something similar to that, not in that magnitude with a stored key, but something equally bullshit until they were exposed. Quite early in their journey. Cannot remember the name right now but there was a good analysis by a researcher. If I remember it, I will add it.

and WireMin

sorry this is not open source. Who is behind it, what is their gain and how do I trust whatever they claim in their website?

sadly they're not accepting donations

it has a built in wallet. Nobody said it was mining anything.

yes. But then they have different problems. Now it is the ad company who is responsible to serve the ads and the personalization comes from there. This is achieved by the client directly "asking" the ad company for ads. If they want the ads to come from the same stream this means that the customer identity is passed to youtube, then youtube requests the ads in behalf of the client, and then serves them mixed in the video stream. I'm not a lawyer but I think that this causes different legal problems for youtube on the part that they will need to ask the ads on behalf of someone else.

Also apart from that, technically, the part of the video that is an ad, will be associated with a call-to-action URL and an overlay on top of the video, since they need that by clicking on the video it will go to a the ad's call-to-action instead of just pausing the video. This will still make them detectable

and they seem to struggle with it.

they never struggled. The just cannot adhere to the "eternal growth" which is different than "struggle". They were making millions. The "problem" was that they wanted each quarter to make more millions that the previous quarter. CEOs believe that there is an infinite amount of potential subscribers or even if they manage to make everyone on earth subscribe then they will eternally increase their prices every quarter. Or I don't know, maybe their system has some flaws

thanks for the input. It makes sense. No, it is not overclocked or intentionally undervolted. I think it could be undervolted if the PSU fails to provide sufficent voltage which also can be a possibility since it was a middle-tier "normal" PSU which is already 5 years old

isn't this more or less what they're doing now? The difference is that the ads are coming from different server and have an overlay on top with a timer and a skip. As long as the ads are coming from a different server they will be detectable. Also as long as the ads have overlays they are also detectable. They would need to make the ads be served from the same server that serves the video and eliminate the overlays.

isn't this more or less what they're doing now? The difference is that the ads are coming from different server and have an overlay on top with a timer and a skip. As long as the ads are coming from a different server they will be detectable. Also as long as the ads have overlays they are also detectable. They would need to make the ads be served from the same server that serves the video and eliminate the overlays.

Look at suicide rates of veterans

I bet this is referring to the US veterans as I doubt there are other countries with such statistic and I wanted to say that IDGAFF. They chose to go fight in the other side of earth thinking they are doing good. Going back and realizing how wrong they were and that in fact they were killing people inside their homes and who never were an actual threat. The reason of the suicides is this tragic realization.