this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026
2 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
87469 readers
3352 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a weird business where everyone is offering an environmentally unsupportable service at below cost, hoping to outlive the competition.
Market share of a negative profit market.
It worked for netflix and the steaming services. Now terrestrial (cable) is dead and adsupported streaming tiers have returned lol.
It's how every tech company that "disrupts" a market or indistry works. Uber started of burning shit tons of cash operating at a loss till it replaced enough Taxi services then jacked up the prices.
The problem with AI is that they cannot increase the prices enough to be profitable. The AI companies are waiting for future hardware tech that will be energy efficient enough to make AI profitable before they run out of capital to burn.
I saw something about the SpaceX IPO that said for it to be justified at that price, everyone on earth with some sort of money (they defined it as earning at least $14,000/year) had to become an xAI consumer and spend $28,000/year. Seems reasonable /s
I was thinking about that, but it did make governments move to digital programming (eg BBC, NPO), which they likely wouldn't have done if it wasn't for Netflix. I think it also improved the internet speeds here in NL significantly.
That's not correct - the BBC announced iPlayer in 2003, tested 2004 onwards and finally launched in 2007 after being delayed by lobbying. The iPlayer was held back from full launch due to concerns from commercial competitors - in particular broadband providers lobbied against the iPlayer service because they feared the "pressure" it would put on the broadband infrastructure.
Netflix launched their streaming service in 2007.
Netflix did not originate the idea of streaming (nor did the BBC to be clear), much like Apple didn't originate the smart phone. Netfiix did however do it better than it's competitors, particularly the incumbents in the commercial sector.
I remember iPlayer in 2007: it was a mess, using DRM and P2P, requiring a full download before watching it. I wouldn't call that a streaming service at all. Shows had to be watched within a week of broadcasting.
I welcome feedback but starting a comment with 'thats not correct' and then blatantly being incorrect is just some ol' bullshit.
I never mentioned that either of the companies originated the idea of streaming. I only posited that Netflix pushed governments (in this case the Dutch and UK) to move to digital programming.