Live data from Hacker News

The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

honestlyranked.com

331–340 of 398 posts

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#331
post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not meaning to be abrasive here, but these comments are also getting old and tired. And it’s not even relevant to what’s actually on the site linked. Who cares if the site is LLM generated? Did you care before when you saw the same Wordpress theme repeatedly, or Bootstrap layouts? The content is what’s interesting, and it is. Edit to clarify: I read the comment as the issue being the look and feel of the site bei…

> Who cares if the site is LLM generated? Good people do.

our current society has such an anemic perception of morality

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#332

From an aesthetic point of view, I am getting pretty tired of this obviously LLM generated static site content template design in 2025/2026. 98% of the time when I see one of these it's a bunch of "content" generated by Claude or similar. Quoting the site: "Written by Rashid N. Rashid N is the editor of HonestlyRanked. He reviews every figure this site publishes against its source before it goes out, and has never ac…

Is there a way to turn off these comments?

Contact the owner and send the message there instead. https://honestlyranked.com/contact/

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#333
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you even measure inflation accurately, given the current government, and has there been 61% inflation over the last 5 years?

Economists exists, we have data on this. Don't be silly.

Is https://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts economists?

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#334
post #270
post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who cares if the site is LLM generated? Good people do.

I wish we could get past this debate. Different people have different feelings. Bucketing into binary "good" and "not good" based on whether they have the exact same framing as you do is dehumanizing. Stop it. Respect other people. There is space for nuance: If you're spitting out raw LLM output and not looking at or reading it and requiring other people to use it as-is, while representing it as your own original wor…

> Different people have different feelings.

Different people have different feelings about what we know call "the Holocaust". They're not equally worthy.

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#335

The title kind of buries important details about the distribution of these costs and their changes. For example, Apple TV+ went from $4.99 per month to $14.99 per month, a +200% change, while YouTube Premium went from $11.99 to $15.99, a +33% change. So services like Apple TV+ are skewing this increase a lot while services like YouTube Premium have remained relatively low. Similarly, Apple TV+ starting at $4.99 per m…

> And, of course, if you're simultaneously paying for Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, HBO Max, Apple TV+, Paramount+, Peacock, YouTube Premium, and Spotify every month, then you're either (a) really into consuming this kind of content and are a "premium subscriber" in the sense that these costs ought to be justified or (b) very bad with managing your time and finances. I suspect normal users subscribe to one or two of these at a time and are probably willing to switch around as prices change, content gets released/pulled, etc.

Or you're the type of person that watches one or two shows on each of these services that in the days of yesteryear would have all been on Netflix, but since every company that owns a production studio decided to launch their own streaming service now means you need 25 subscriptions to keep up with the handful of decent shows with reasonable production budgets so you aren't stuck otherwise just consuming slop. Given the consolidation in industry, it's even more insult to injury as there's now only a handful of companies that collectively have /multiple/ streaming services per company each with a different fee because our current timeline is one of absolutely egregious extractive behavior and rent-seeking with no compensating controls.

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems weird to question their statement, right? Surely they know their life. This is not that unusual. I also have never had any of these, or any other, streaming services. It's been wonderful.

I'm not questioning not having streaming services. I'm questioning it actually being cheaper than buying physical media in the long term for anyone who listens to more than the occasional song or watches the occasional movie. If the answer is "I pirate stuff", that's fine. But just be honest about it.

It's absolutely cheaper in the long run for me. I spent a fair bit on my CDs (and digital downloads), sure. But I never need to pay another dime in my life. I'm going to guess that I spent somewhere around $1000 on my music collection. But $13/mo for Spotify for 60 years (if we figure one listens to music from 15-75) is $9360. I'm coming out quite far ahead by owning my music.

If you are someone who wants to frequently listen to new music, then sure, Spotify is cheaper than constantly buying new albums. But I at least don't do that; I listen to the same music I listened to as a teenager and I pick up 0-1 new albums per year. So again, no real advantage to using Spotify.

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#337
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DVDs are 480p.

It’s unwatchable. I’m not being sarcastic. I pulled out some of my old DVDs, they look terrible.

"unwatchable" is ridiculous. I have plenty of 480p rips that I took from my DVDs, and they look just fine. Not remotely unwatchable.

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#338
post #25

I am still happy with my decision to never get entertainment subscription services. I buy CDs (that I rip) and BDs (that I let someone else rip, since that's a science in itself). This guarantees me access forever and I get to sell down the line, if I feel like it. It is way cheaper long term.

It's not way cheaper long-term at all, I mean unless you really watch/listen to a tiny amount of content, you can rip the same way with Netflix, Hulu and so-on as well so I don't see how that makes it more durable? What you are doing is practically the same equivalent as downloading torrents, how do you have "more guarantees" than just downloading? PS: I'm saying this because what you are doing is already illegal so…

It's definitely cheaper long term for me. I don't watch/listen to a tiny amount of content, but the cost of buying the stuff once and never paying a dime after comes out far ahead of the cost of a subscription every month for life.

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#339
post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is way cheaper long term. Buying CDs would be so much more expensive than my Spotify subscription with the variety of music I listen to. Another helpful element of the streaming services is no incremental cost to try out a new movie or series. I can start a new show and drop it 15 minutes in if I decide I don’t like it. I will listen to 20 or more new bands each week on Spotify. It’s how I discover new music. Fo…

My CD collection is around 30 years old. Spotify is currently $13/month. $13 times 30 years is $4680. A lot of people could cover most of what they listen to with that much budgeted to buying CDs... and I'd remind people that the relevant price isn't list price but what you actually pay. Fetching a Michael Jackson album out of a bargain bin for $1 is that album for a $1, whatever someone else somewhere else somewhen…

> and I'd remind people that the relevant price isn't list price but what you actually pay. Fetching a Michael Jackson album out of a bargain bin for $1 is that album for a $1,

If going to physical stores, sifting through bargain bins, accepting whatever nobody else wanted, spending the time to physically rip the CD, and hoping that second hand bargain disc wasn’t scratched is your idea of a good time then that’s great for you.

I will pay $4680 over 30 years of my life to not have to deal with that and to be able to listen to anything I want whenever I want without having to manage a library or streaming setup.

That honestly sounds like a bargain when I consider the time saved over 30 years!

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#340
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is way cheaper long term. Buying CDs would be so much more expensive than my Spotify subscription with the variety of music I listen to. Another helpful element of the streaming services is no incremental cost to try out a new movie or series. I can start a new show and drop it 15 minutes in if I decide I don’t like it. I will listen to 20 or more new bands each week on Spotify. It’s how I discover new music. Fo…

Try before you buy is what piracy is for. I would prefer if there was another venue to try before paying, but the industry hasn't figured this out in the past hundred years, so piracy it is. Streaming could be an acceptable compromise if it was $10 a year for everything in existence, but the catalogues are splintered across multiple services and even when you combine them all there are plenty of things not available.

Youtube? (since this is about music)
Post reply on HN