this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
12 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59322 readers
4321 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Sooner or later, everything old is new again.

We may be at this point in tech, where supposedly revolutionary products are becoming eerily similar to the previous offerings they were supposed to beat.

Take video streaming. In search of better profitability, Netflix, Disney, and other providers have been raising prices. The various bundles are now as annoyingly confusing as cable, and cost basically the same. Somehow, we're also paying to watch ads. How did that happen?

Amazon Prime Video costs $9 a month and there are no ads. Oh, except when Thursday Night Football is on. Then there are loads of ads. And Amazon is discussing an ad-supported version of the Prime Video service, according to The Wall Street Journal. That won't be free, I can assure you.

Paramount+ with Showtime costs $12 a month and the live TV part has commercials and a few other shows include "brief promotional interruptions," according to the company. Translation: ads.

Streaming was supposed to be better and cheaper. I'm not sure that's the case anymore. This NFL season, like previous years, I will record games on OTA linear TV using a TiVo box from about 2014. I'll watch hours of action every weekend for free and I'll watch no ads. Streaming can't match that.

You can still stream without ads, but the cost of this is getting so high, and the bundling is so complex, that it's getting as bad as cable — the technology that streaming was supposed to radically improve upon.

The Financial Times recently reported that a basket of the top US streaming services will cost $87 this fall, compared with $73 a year ago. The average cable TV package costs $83 a month, it noted. A 3-mile Uber ride that cost $51.69

A similar shift is happening in ride-hailing. Uber has been on a quest to become profitable, and it achieved that, based on one measure, in the most-recent quarter. Lyft is desperately trying to keep up. How are they doing this? Raising prices is one way.

Wired's editor at large, Steven Levy, recently took a 2.95-mile Uber ride from downtown New York City to the West Side to meet Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. When asked to estimate the cost of the ride, Khosrowshahi put it at $20. That turned out to be less than half the actual price of $51.69, including a tip for the driver.

"Oh my God. Wow," the CEO said upon learning the cost.

I recently took a Lyft from Seattle-Tacoma International airport to a home in the city. It cost $66.69 with driver tip. As a test, I ordered a taxi for the return journey. Exact same distance, and the cab was stuck in traffic longer. The cost was $70 with a tip. So basically the same.

And the cab can be ordered with an app now that shows its location, just like Uber and Lyft. So what's the revolutionary benefit here? The original vision was car sharing where anyone could pick anyone else up. Those disruptive benefits have steadily ebbed away through regulation, disputes with drivers over pay, and the recent push for profitability. Cloud promises are being broken

Finally, there's the cloud, which promised cheaper and more secure computing for companies. There are massive benefits from flexibility here: You can switch your rented computing power on and off quickly depending on your needs. That's a real advance.

The other main benefits — price and security — are looking shakier lately.

Salesforce, the leading provider of cloud marketing software, is increasing prices this month. The cost of the Microsoft 365 cloud productivity suite is rising, too, along with some Slack and Adobe cloud offerings, according to CIO magazine.

AWS is going to start charging customers for an IPv4 address, a crucial internet protocol. Even before this decision, AWS costs had become a major issue in corporate board rooms.

As a fast-growing startup, Snap bought into the cloud and decided not to build it's own infrastructure. In the roughly five years since going public, the company has spent about $3 billion on cloud services from Google and AWS. These costs have been the second-biggest expense at Snap, behind employees.

"While cloud clearly delivers on its promise early on in a company's journey, the pressure it puts on margins can start to outweigh the benefits, as a company scales and growth slows," VC firm Andreessen Horowitz wrote in a blog. "There is a growing awareness of the long-term cost implications of cloud."

Some companies, such as Dropbox, have even repatriated most of their IT workloads from the public cloud, saving millions of dollars, the VC firm noted.

What about security? Last month, Google, the third-largest cloud provider, started a pilot program where thousands of its employees are limited to using work computers that are not connected to the internet, according to CNBC.

The reason: Google is trying to reduce the risk of cyberattacks. If staff have computers disconnected from the internet, hackers can't compromise these devices and gain access to sensitive user data and software code, CNBC reported.

So, cloud services connected to the internet are great for everyone, except Google? Not a great cloud sales pitch.

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Last month, Google, the third-largest cloud provider, started a pilot program where thousands of its employees are limited to using work computers that are not connected to the internet, according to CNBC.

That's not even close to accurate reporting.

They removed internet access from engineers' build machines, not from peoples' workstations.

Builds at Google are reproducible and do not require external network access. See Bazel.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

i have an inconsistent internet connection. it's fine, but i refuse to ruin a movie by trying to stream it. since netflix and others don't give you a way to pre-download the movie, they can completely suck my balls. 0/10. 🚽🪠

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Well, you can pre-download. Sometimes it's called torrent))

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Did anyone actually expect anything else?

Capitalism will never cost less in the long term.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Honestly i thought the concept of Uber would work. I'm commuting and you are too so you give me a few bucks to go my way. It was supposed to be "Cash, grass, or ass" minus the grass and ass.

But then people started driving purely to get people to pay them and suddenly its a taxi service.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

astronaut-1

Uber would never have gotten venture capital if it didn't promise a monopoly on taxis.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Oh of course. Half of the staff at any of these types of apps are looking for a huge sell out which requires bastardizing the concept. I just wish for once one of these apps would stay true to their original stated purpose. Ride Share means you're going this way for a reason too, not just to be a taxi.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Left to its own ends it seems it will cost the same but have better margins concentrated into greater wealth for fewer people.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We need UBI, like, 5 centuries ago.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean, I like the idea but you don’t think greedflation will just jack up the price of things more once “we all have more money to spend”?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Exactly. Until we put either the heaviest lid on capitalism (never going to happen) or upend the system entirely, UBI will “drive inflation,” meaning we’ll still make the same (or probably somehow less) at our jobs while the UBI money literally just keeps everything at the same affordability. There is no world in which business doesn’t just go after that money. We saw very recently, with the flimsiest of excuses, capitalists will claim “inflation” while pocketing record profits. They’ll do the exact same if UBI is implemented without some massive changes to capitalism.

Burn it all down. Anyone that still has hopes for fixes that maintain the capitalist system are fooling themselves. We have no other options at this point. It’s either we do it now, or wait until capitalism and the devastating effects of climate change force our hand. At least if we do it now, at our own discretion, we might be able to throw the emergency-emergency brakes on climate change. Otherwise, companies and the capitalists that run them will absolutely watch us all fry from their self-sustaining pod homes that are built in the upper atmosphere to keep the temperature bearable and to stay above the devastating weather events. And they’ll do it without thinking twice.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The best solution would be to raise taxes for the richest, but considering the fact, that bullshit like big corps being allowed to lobby in the US is a thing, well... It is not going to be easy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

But raising taxes for the richest is a small band aid on a massively flawed system. It’d be like getting a second, even smaller bucket to bail water out of the titanic. After it’s broken in half.

There are so many incredibly serious problems that higher taxes for the wealthy wouldn’t fix. Liberals tend to cling to this option because it worked back in the 20th century. But capitalism has kept getting more and more “streamlined,” fucking over the working class more and more. Because the concept of endless growth has continued through multiple decades of massive changes to the game that only favored the wealthy, changes to the tax code being one that happened so long ago that it’s an entirely different concept at this point. Outsourcing, vertical integration, the explosion of invasive advertising, data mining, the explosion of privatization, the infestation of private money dictating policy, the infestation of private interests writing policy…this is a small list of the most visible things that have become so entrenched that a wealth tax would almost be nothing.

That money would get funneled right back into their pockets, even if they somehow let a wealth tax bill through—yeah, they LET a bill through. As you said, a massive stumbling block that only goes to show how deep this problem is.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Nope. People will focus on life hacking their way through surviving of fractions of UBI.

UBI is a freedom.

To dismiss it as something that will be immediately taken is how one finds themselves clinging to their shackles from comfort; pearl clutching them over the uncertainty of freedom.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Candles were once a significant cost. But lightbulbs are incredibly cheap.

Food used to take a whole day to acquire.

We have things that even royalty didn't have before, like air conditioning, out-of-season food, international travel, etc.

Capitalism sucks for sure. But it has given society a few benefits, and sometimes things do get significantly cheaper long term (but I'm generally skeptical about which items will go that way)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You'd have thought it was obvious, but everyone I've ever met IRL thought they'd be cheaper forever.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I work in IT and I've been against the cloud for over a decade and I always got looks like I was crazy. We still have vendors pushing us to buy into the cloud, I'll fight tooth and nail all the way. Unfortunately, a lot of vendors aren't giving much of a choice anymore by making their services cloud only. We'll have to start building custom applications soon to keep everything on-prem.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

As a fellow IT person, Cloud is the same as any new Buzzword tech.

It's an especially good fit for a handful of use cases, but the execs hear about it through whatever channels they frequent and think that it will solve a bunch of problems that dont exist.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I find these kinds of posts to be so entitled and pessimistic. Yeah, prices have definitely gone up, but the tech solutions are almost unilaterally better than their replacements.

  • Streaming: you don’t actually have to subscribe to every single streaming service, and most are dead simple to cancel (good luck canceling your cable service). Most are very lax about sharing passwords, or have cheaper ad-based tiers if you want to save a bit.
  • Uber: you can summon a comfortable car that seats up to 6 and can set your destination as well as multiple stops, and have it pull right up to where you are, often in 5 minutes or less, without needing to talk to or hail someone. In the US prices have crept up but in other countries it’s still a bargain compared to taxis, which are sometimes run like a racket.
  • Cloud: I don’t even know what this is doing here since we are talking consumer tech and this is more about B2B services. For the consumer the cloud is still dirt cheap and transformative, and doesn’t even have a “back in my day” equivalent.

Everything is amazing and no one is happy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I'm calling out your streaming counterpoint: in the beginning, there was Netflix. It had almost everything from almost all studios, didn't care about password sharing, and was easily very affordable, even more so if you split costs between everyone sharing accounts. The best part? No ads. The content kept getting better, the show formats kept getting more accesible.

It was clearly more convenient for everyone to just have Netflix, even more convenient than piracy, but now? Every studio, every company, they all veered away from Netflix and decided to create their own services. Then the price wars started, then the crackdowns on password sharing, and the ad-supported tiers, and then they started canceling shit, good shit, in order to claim them as losses in their tax declarations. And then we all lost, because now we can't find most content in a single place, we have to endure ads if we want to save money, and we cannot even use some services while traveling since there are limits to devices linked to the accounts. Oh and that show you liked? David Zaslav wanted a bonus this year, so it got shelved even though it was a huge success. It's no longer convenient to use streaming services, at least not as convenient as it used to be.

You know what's convenient now? Piracy, through Plex, Jellyfin, and Emby, all with automations, all easily shareable between friends. That's what I'm doing now, friends chip in when more storage space is needed, or when some additional service is needed. It's more work for the more tech-oriented of us, but hell if it isn't fun to just sail the high seas, giving the finger to these companies, while giving friends a good experience.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because it's getting worse. The trend (capitalism) is about squeezing more and more money from consumers and leaving less and less value. In a year the price of streaming could be another 20% up, and they could have added more ads. Because that's what they do, always. It's always getting worse after the initial honeymoon period, and it keeps getting worse.

It's very different from open source for example, where things constantly get better every year.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's almost like the underlying premise doesn't change with tech.

The things that can/should be broken is the stupid medallion system.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Tech has become a scam in many areas. It's just doing the same thing as it always has been, just with an abusive corporate master. The goal is to scam the investor into funding bad ideas, or use that funding to undercut the competition. It is rarely about innovation anymore.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The point on the cloud is quite arbitrary to be honest. Yeah aws is coming to charge for extra unused ipv4 addresses, because there's a damn shortage of them and it's literally impossible to "produce more". The solution is ipv6 but the infrastructure is not ready yet, which is embarrassing by now.

The point about security seems so god damn stupid. If you can work with limited outside access, it's going to be more secure, the point of cloud being more secure is not to compare to your personal pc, it's to compare to pcs that you expose to the exterior. In fact, Internet access and cloud servers don't necessarily need to be the same thing, when people talks about Internet access they usually mean the web, and servers talk with each other with a myriad of other protocols that are not https.

I'm amazed I even read half of that, and even more that it was such uninformed bullshit.

What's even the point of this post, I'm clearly not it's target audience.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Bro really read a Business Insider post and criticized it from a technical point of view 💀

At least you didn't get an aneurysm reading it.