Tech’s broken promises: Streaming is now just as expensive and confusing as cable. Ubers cost as much as taxis. And the cloud is no longer cheap::Some tech is getting pricier and looking a lot like the older services it was supposed to beat. From video streaming to ride-hailing and cloud computing.

  • jhulten@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    567
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    You say “broken promises” I say “the plan all along” and “bait and switch”.

    • cerevant@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      264
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep. The business model has always been “Lure them in and stifle competition with a low initial cost. Then when we have the market we can jack up the price.” Enshitification at its best.

      • AndreaHill@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        151
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is just capitalism at work. Capitalism = enshitification, exploitation, and destruction.

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            46
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah but then the wealthy eventually start buying away regulation. The only thing that made capitalism get under any sort of control was fear of a worker’s revolution

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The only thing that made capitalism get under any sort of control was fear of a worker’s revolution

              Yep, and so they made capitalism global, exported all of the union jobs to countries where labor abuse is permitted or encouraged, and then created new categories of unorganized, exploitative jobs faster than labor could keep up with them.

          • krayj@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Even well-regulated capitalism strives for this and somehow manages to achieve it. It is the nature of capitalism.

            • Slotos@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It is in the nature of power. Reducing this to a particular economic system is nearsighted.

              Every social system with a power dynamic (i.e. a system with two or more people in it) is vulnerable to power abuse. Power blinds, blindness strips powerful of perspective, decisions made without good information drunk-walk towards ruin.

              The only common thing is the fact that it’s the average Jane who suffers first and whose rage ends up counteracting the ruin.

              • krayj@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It is in the nature of power. Reducing this to a particular economic system is nearsighted.

                I will agree that it is the nature of power. But I will argue that few other economic systems actively facilitate (and actually reward) the concentration of power the way capitalism does. I’ll also point out you are basically resorting to a “whataboutism” argument.

                • Slotos@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ll also point out you are basically resorting to a “whataboutism” argument.

                  That explains… a lot. I apologize for wasting your time.

          • hglman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            If its actually well regulated it wont be capitalism. Just like Europe has many kingdoms yet isnt full of actual monarchy.

            • Staccato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              All capitalism is, at its core, is the system of owning and investing capital for greater returns later. You can have that while regulating things–at least in theory.

              • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                An actual dictionary definition of capitalism:

                an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

                Any definition of capitalism that doesn’t in some way mention private ownership of capital is simply wrong.

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      A lot of these things were proudly unprofitable, which is basically their way of getting around anti-trust violations. If they had a revenue stream to make the business profitable (outside of investors handing them more cash) then they’d be hit with anti-trust lawsuits for offering services at a loss in order to drive the competition out of business. But instead they just convince investors to hang on long enough to achieve the same goal, then raise their prices when they’ve got too much power to fail.

    • Intralexical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Rent seeking” has a nice ring to it in this case, I think. The previous situation was fine, except for not being profitable enough for the right people.