Op-ed: Apps promised to free us from ad-supported subscription bundles. Oops!

For a moment, it seemed like the streaming apps were the things that could save us from the hegemony of cable TV—a system where you had to pay for a ton of stuff you didn’t want to watch so you could see the handful of things you were actually interested in.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/K4EIh

  • DigitalWebSlinger@lemmy.worldEnglish
    221·
    1 year ago

    I will forever wonder how these companies actively choose $0/mo over a cut of $XX/mo and everyone in the decision chain thinks it’s the right decision.

    • skizzles@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      1 year ago

      Because your 0$ per month after dropping them doesn’t hurt their bottom line.

      Corporations generally weigh the risks and the benefit often wins out and they make more money because there are enough people that either reluctantly cave into the fee increase, forgot about their subscription or just don’t care that it’s going up.

      It’s fairly seldom (but seems to be increasing over the years) to see so much backlash that a company walks back on what they were planning to do.

      • Linuto@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        1 year ago

        My favorite example of the reverse in recent memory has been Wizards of the Coast essentially going back completely and then some on their unpopular OGL changes after a significant portion of their DnD Beyond members canceled their subscriptions.

      • glimse@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        1 year ago

        Everyone thinks they’re better at making business decisions than the financial analysts at major corporations lol

        Yeah, these changes suck for the customers (/ex-customers) but do you really think that was a big part of the equation? They do not care about you and the research says they will make more money increasing the cost despite the backlash. And they’re almost definitely right.