• quixotic120@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Except people aren’t necessarily going back to piracy en masse

    Torrent sites are dwindling, even the big ones have sad membership numbers compared to 10yrs ago

    A large amount of internet users access the internet via devices that are openly hostile to or outright disallow anything that would enable piracy. The devices are then connected to an internet that is further hostile and aims to steer you away from anything deemed unsavory

    Phones and tablets are cumbersome and unintuitive to navigate. In the case of apple torrent clients are not allowed to be listed on their app store and sideloading is involved and kind of a pain. Chromebooks and windows 11 are better obviously but less utilized then you’d think

    But that leads to the second point, which is kind of angry old man yells at cloud, but people are just less tech inclined now. It makes sense because modern tech is designed to oppress the user whereas tech in the late 90s and early 2000s was more to empower them. They don’t bother to figure out how to install applications, use the file explorer, change settings, etc. the very basic steps needed to pirate shit (you obviously don’t need to be a super hacker). They don’t need to. The command prompt or a terminal is something that makes them think you’re hacking shit

    They download applications like steam and then their browser auto opens the installer, then steam handles installing games and mods from that point on. They are safeguarded against having to deal with the icky filesystem and their hand is held every step of the way. Or they just download stuff from the official MS app store and even more hand holding. It’s okay because they’re only gonna install 5 streaming apps anyway and then use the browser to visit the 6 approved websites that google or bing search sends you to for basically any query.

    And that’s only if they actually have a proper computer. If they have a tablet or phone they either are pushed extremely heavily towards the above scenario, or in the case of apple they simply have no other option

    10 years from now the internet will just be 2-3 social media sites, a few shopping conglomerates, wikis, and streaming sites. The devices used to access will no longer let you access the filesystem directly, apps will be unable to be installed if they aren’t code signed by apple or google or ms or whoever, sealed in epoxy, and draconian drm everywhere. 40 years from now your grandchildren will think you’re weird for complaining about how you used to have autonomy and authority over your devices once you owned them and they’ll remind you it’s time to pay another $400 bezobucks to rent the google chrome ar internet hub for another month because you’re not allowed to own it and it’s a federal crime to take it apart

    • djsoren19@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think your doom and gloom scenario is a little dramatic considering we already have Linux. The free platform where you have full control over your technological experience already exists and has been well maintained for decades at this point. Sure, proprietary software not working on Linux sucks and will continue to be an issue, but there’s typically FOSS alternatives for the useful programs.

      It’d be more accurate to say we’ll have two Internets, especially since that’s expressly what Google wants. The ignorant people will all flock to the corpo slopping trough, and people like us will be using Linux devices to access federated sites like this one.

      • quixotic120@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        This is true but is only applicable as long as manufacturers still allow alternative OS to exist. It sounds crazy now but the idea of not being able to use an alternative is something that manufacturers are clearly toying with (see the x elite laptops with locked boot loaders, hp secureboot, etc).

        They’ve seen the control they can exert over users with mobile devices and they want that across the spectrum. Then it goes back to a point I made in another comment; Linux/foss users can and will still exist but they will be restricted to ancient hardware that prevents them from working on certain tasks. This already occurs: look at a true foss idealist that will only use hardware that can run coreboot/libreboot. You’re generally running hardware well over a decade old at this point. If you want to work on any computationally complex task (ml models, high poly 3d modeling, anything requiring a modern discrete gpu really), you’re out of luck unless you compromise your ideals

        The thing is Linux users and other power users think “if manufacturers lock the bootloader there will be a huge outcry and people won’t buy it”. And there is truth to that, there will be a lot of noise online. But most users won’t care and they’ll still buy the stuff. And apple/google/hp/lenovo/etc will push/pay their buddies at facebook/reddit/etc to downplay the discussion/outrage so it will blow over quick and become a normal thing. Then all it takes is a new dmca extension or modification and now overriding a manufacturer lock on a bootloader is an illegal modification

        • djsoren19@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Right but you can still build your own PC. I already don’t bother with a laptop or any of that other garbage because they are just worthless tech garbage. Sure, the new MacBook/Chromebook/etc will be locked down, but they’re already a bitch to get a different OS running on so I’d argue we’re already there.

          Essentially what would be required is DRM from Intel or AMD on their CPUs to prevent you from ultimately installing whatever OS you want, and I don’t think that fits their business model. I think they just want to make a bunch of money selling overpriced silicone, and don’t need control of the platform. Sure, your software will be a few steps behind the cutting edge corpo stuff, but you make it sound like people will be trapped on their 2010 Thinkpad. You can still have a high powered computer, you just have to be part of a different ecosystem.

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Netflix didn’t get greedy (well not in that way). The movie companies wanted to make their own platform, which would have left Netflix with nothing. So they had to become their own production company. They said “we have to become a production company faster than production companies become streaming companies”.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Exactly this and more.

    I’m not even pirating because it’s cheaper, or easier. I have near 100TB in storage, and it takes hours per week to search material, have it downloaded, checked, etc. I just am done with the marketing, the branding, the advertising, the bullshit rules. I just want to watch what I want to watch and media companies made this impossible so I’m forced to sail the high seas

  • Anon got it backwards, networks noticed how profitable Netflix was and bumped the price for Netflix to stream their stuff. Netflix responded by producing their own content rather than leasing others’ at exorbitant rates. Then Netflix later got greedy and bumped their prices, lowered their quality, and cancelled all of their good shows.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I think it’s a bit of both. Netflix knew that companies choosing to pull their content would be a threat, so they prematurely started producing content (famously starting with House of Cards and Orange is the New Black). Whether because they saw this as a threat or because of the perceived greater profitability of their own platforms (probably a bit of both), other studios started pulling their content from Netflix and setting up their own streaming sites.

      And naturally, other companies pulling their content accelerated Netflix’s desire to produce their own content to ensure they weren’t left in the lurch.

      • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yall are overcomplicating things. Let me simplify.

        Capitalist corporations + infinite greed = cannibalism

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I really wish I was a consultant for these fucking jokers.

    Back when Disney+ was just “Rumor has it Disney wants to launch their own Netflix-like streaming service.”, I called this shit. I said “Well that’s just going to cause this whole thing to fall apart, no one’s going to juggle 50 different streaming services just to be able to find something to watch.”

    And I was fucking right.

    The only ethical streaming service is Tubi as it doesn’t charge relying on ads alone, and it’s a neat little bonus that Tubi has actively aided in the restoration of lost media.

    If it aint on Tubi, then I’m going to yo-ho-ho with a bottle of fuck you.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      just going to cause this whole thing to fall apart

      Disney Plus generated $8.4 billion revenue in 2023, an 13% increase year-on-year.

      lol

  • nul42@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    2007? I remember watching a DivX of The Matrix back in 99. Prior to that I remember watching south park episodes in the RealPlayer.

    • mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yes, but you are old as a rock.
      Those times are lost in the unknowable pre-history of what we call “the internet” today.