Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

But what if I want a faster horse?

rakhim.exotext.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 632 posts

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#321

Post by ryandrake »

WorldPeas wrote: post #306
ryandrake wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone (and previously iPod), from day one, could never simply be mounted as an external USB (or networked) file system. You always had to do the ridiculous "sync" song and dance and use their proprietary software, instead of just copying files using the OS like every other external storage device. Maddening.

more maddening yet is you can actually mount it as a limited storage device using https://libimobiledevice.org/ under linux, but not MacOs(to my knowledge) EDIT: perhaps it's time I make a utility that I could use to achieve these ends: https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/libimobiledevice

Unfortunately, from their FAQ:

    How do I copy music to my device?

    Sorry, music synchronization with newer devices is currently not supported but if you are a keen developer why not contribute a new service implementation for the ATC Service?

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#322

Post by barbazoo »

phh wrote: post #252
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #242

All of the examples listed have something in common: they are services for accessing content you don't own. So it is in the provider's interest to find ways to satisfy you with less and/or cheaper content. The Netflix changes aren't attempts to make their product better. They are attempts to save money by obscuring the amount and/or quality of available content. By contrast, if you buy BluRays from one company and Bl…

> It is therefore in the provider's interest to make you satisfied with less and/or cheaper content. After getting annoyed by their interface that was showing 80% of content I have already seen, I've come to a realization: Their incentive is not even to make me watch crap. No! Their best outcome for them is for me to watch nothing and still pay. Showing me old shows gives me the warm feelings and make me associate th…

Personally I wouldn't even bother with old shows on netflix since they could go away, and do, all the time. I download and put on my local plex instance, especially with bangers like The Office, there's no harm done.

Netflix et al are good for those high profile miniseries you want to watch once and then never again. The rest, download and enjoy without ads, without dark patterns, especially content that kids watch (youtube).

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#323

Post by Apocryphon »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #56
bloak wrote: post #51

This sounds like an economic problem with no obvious solution: network effects => monopoly => "optimising" for typical user. Where there isn't a monopoly (or anything close to a monopoly) you find different firms specialising in different ways. For example, small independent restaurants survive by being distinctive, not by trying to imitate McDonald's. YouTube and LinkedIn are practically monopolies. Netflix isn't a…

Yeah, more like Netflix (and we might as well add Amazon here) became popular because of "the long tail". Once, I could easily find 1930's classics like "Stella Dallas" on Netflix (and early Ultravox! on Amazon when they would have to be ordered from brick and mortar music stores at the time). For some reason (perhaps because it costs money to keep a large catalog?) Netflix retracted the long tail while Amazon at lea…

My guess is that Netflix is tried to cultivate a semi-premium brand (but not premium in an Apple TV+ way), which means getting rid of the long tail in favor of what's hip, sexy, exciting, etc. Whereas while Amazon is making expensive boondoggles like Ring of Power, they are also comfortable with keeping dozens of conspiracy theory documentaries on. I guess that's in line with the identity of their main store, and the concept of Amazon being a series of warehouses.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#324

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

Then we need start optimizing for horse-speed, and stop optimizing for "engagement". The first step is to get away from building ad-funded widgets. Until we do that we will always have to listen to somebody who cares less about what the user wants and more about what can be profitably done to that user.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#325

Post by barbazoo »

eadmund wrote: post #266

> YouTube. YouTube: Once a video catalog with social discovery. Now? TikTok. I hate YouTube Shorts with a passion. They are low-effort engagement bait. They cannot be disabled. Even worse, my Google TV will not play them when my phone is connected to it, and my phone will not play them when it is connected to my TV. Both devices can play them fine, they just don’t want to play them when they are connected. There can…

> They cannot be disabled

Chrome: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/unhook-remove-youtu...

Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/youtube-recom...

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#327

Post by karn97 »

xigoi wrote: post #285
nthingtohide wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't even need a watch. Smartphones can tell you time (you can configure to show times for many timezones) yet there is a market for watches (luxury or normal)

A watch is more convenient. I don’t need to take my phone out of my pocket to see the time, I just look at my wrist.

I think you're quite underestimating how many times a person takes their phone out and it's way more than they turn their wrist around to see their watch

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#328

Post by raincole »

furyg3 wrote: post #9

The TikTok-ification of advertising supported platforms is terrible, but makes sense to me. LinkedIn pivoted from making money on subscriptions and fees for job postings to ads, which mean the leading drivers are 'engagement' e.g. time you spend doom scrolling on their platform. This will end in disaster for the platform as a place to find jobs or employees. Netflix I understand much less. They make money from subscr…

> Why they would foster a doom-scrolling experience I really can't really explain

They want to take the bargaining power from creators (and old IP owners).

They don't want the customers to search for a specific show. They want the customers to watch whatever is shown to them. This way Netflix will have tremendous power over show creators - if our algorithm doesn't favor you, it doesn't matter how good your show is or how much money you spend on marketing outside Netflix.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#329

Post by codexb »

furyg3 wrote: post #9

The TikTok-ification of advertising supported platforms is terrible, but makes sense to me. LinkedIn pivoted from making money on subscriptions and fees for job postings to ads, which mean the leading drivers are 'engagement' e.g. time you spend doom scrolling on their platform. This will end in disaster for the platform as a place to find jobs or employees. Netflix I understand much less. They make money from subscr…

Netflix's primary goal used to be to attract new subscribers. Now it's a more about maintaining subscribers and finding new ways to monetize the existing subscriber base. That's why you're seeing things like "sharing" subscriptions, and advertising, and premium plans.

Re: But what if I want a faster horse?

#330

Post by cess11 »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #299
lotsofpulp wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads are embedded into the media Netflix sells. See almost any car chase scene, either wholly unnecessary or unnecessarily long to advertise the car brand, many times with the actors’ speaking lines solely to advertise the car. Even critically acclaimed shows like Slow Horses from a supposedly prestige media seller like Apple has scenes where you watch actors put on AirPods Max headphones (obviously with no relevance…

> More accurate is “streaming without discrete ad breaks.” Yes, or as people call it: "ad-free". We all know what is meant by that phrase, being pedantic about "well actually there are ads regardless" doesn't make communication clearer.

What would you call actually ad-free broadcasts then?
Post reply on HN