71–80 of 207 posts
Low cost computer, free software updates, backend infrastructure, several years of functional life, for $40 in sales (is there any profit there?). Exactly how is it surprising that they need to make some sort of additional revenue via kickback?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you know that you could just grab an old computer slap Ubuntu on it, and get all of those services through only 1 HDMI slot?
If you're talking about doing the playback on Ubuntu, you lose the high-definition. I guess it may not be important for you, but I expect someone who sunk a fair amount of change on a high-end TV to care.
Point #1: This bait-and-switch tactic shouldn't be allowed by consumer regulations (Not in the US, but here in Brazil it would be a no-no) as in the end Amazon is tricking it's use base into paying for the Fire TV as a great deal, when in the end they will pay more for streaming as those costs that Amazon is putting on the streaming services will be paid by them in the end. #2 Wouldn't this movement be (potentially)…
It's called the razor-and-blade model, it's not a bait and switch. RE Plex, that's basically what Android TV does, except it's better than Plex (for streaming services and device manufacturers) and has the same model as FireTV
- Customers bought the devices without the 30% rule in effect
- Amazon introduces the 30% rule
- Customers will now be asked higher prices to make up for the lost revenue
The razor-and-blade model is about selling one product cheap to increase sales on a complementary good. It's not about a vendor changing the situation, as is the case here.
Point #1: This bait-and-switch tactic shouldn't be allowed by consumer regulations (Not in the US, but here in Brazil it would be a no-no) as in the end Amazon is tricking it's use base into paying for the Fire TV as a great deal, when in the end they will pay more for streaming as those costs that Amazon is putting on the streaming services will be paid by them in the end. #2 Wouldn't this movement be (potentially)…
Umm no need to pay for many or any streaming service then that consumer problem is solved just watch the free outlets like YouTube. Hollywood's biggest competitor is content creators on Youtube, Tiktok, etc ... my bet is they will need to compete and many paid offerings will consolidate and become free / less expensive to compete with all the free content creators on YouTube, Tiktok and etc. If you look at where the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really surprised that no one has bothered (or managed) to create an open-source TEE emulator. I mean, there's a ton of different ARM CPUs around there, and it's all ARM under the hood, so it should be possible to create a virtual TEE/TPM and provide it transparently to a VM?
What I'm more surprised, is that since most of the decoding and stuff is done on the GPU anyways, and the GPU has to be HDCP compliant, why can't they just directly send the stream to the GPU as is, tell it where to display it, and be done with it.
The trickle down effects of Apple being a $3T corporation that is widely beloved and did it all on the back of a fiercely guarded walled garden.
They are able to charge 30% of app revenue because they can. They are a for profit company.
Amazon Fire did not do that because nobody uses it. Now that it has some traction, lo and behold, they want their cut as well.
If anything, Roku is the direct competitor (low cost streaming stick) and they take 30% ad revenue. But Apple gets the blame. lol.
Low cost computer, free software updates, backend infrastructure, several years of functional life, for $40 in sales (is there any profit there?). Exactly how is it surprising that they need to make some sort of additional revenue via kickback?
If they're taking 30% from Netflix, 30% from Max, 30% from Disney, and 30% from Paramount, they're getting over $16/mo. Should it be $16/mo per user?
The problem isn't that they need revenue. It's that the revenue demands seem very high compared to the costs of maintaining those boxes. They aren't looking for $10/year to cover their costs and make some profit. They're looking to get more revenue than those actually creating the content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Umm no need to pay for many or any streaming service then that consumer problem is solved just watch the free outlets like YouTube. Hollywood's biggest competitor is content creators on Youtube, Tiktok, etc ... my bet is they will need to compete and many paid offerings will consolidate and become free / less expensive to compete with all the free content creators on YouTube, Tiktok and etc. If you look at where the…
I'm not convinced that Hollywood really competes with TikTok. Going out for a movie date sounds a lot more interesting than "let's go flop on the couch and watch TikTok/YouTube all evening."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can't you just plug a Linux box into your TV and use that? Like am I taking crazy pills. I got fed up with the madness of all the streaming sticks, and putting in my password with a crappy remote and ended up dropping $300 on an old desktop from a discount computer store. Spent an hour throwing Ubuntu on it, and now bam, works like a charm. I put the youtube, PBS Kids, and Disney+ (which we later removed) icons o…
> Why can't you just plug a Linux box into your TV and use that? Because most streaming services don't support 4k HDR on Linux. And if I'm spending thousands of dollars for my TV to play 4k HDR content, I want to be able to watch it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is I feel Apple's walls protect me as well as their profits. I do not feel the same about Amazon/Microsoft/Meta/Google.
[flagged]