Hey, just because companies always choose (and get away with) "make more money by cutting costs" instead of "attract more customers with lower prices" doesn't mean they have to ...right?
Silentiea
joined 1 year ago
Also, for a business other than Disney, licensing fees for the content they show can be a pretty large cost that needs a lot of subscribers to offset.
By making up more costs.
More seriously, by evaluating what you could be making by letting someone else run the streaming service and pay you for the rights, instead. It's still a pretty imaginary number, but it does come from something real.
What are you and Dianey doing to children?
Childish.
Cutesy
Calibrated
Gross. But also, isn't that, like, the capitalism endgame? Good for them, I guess?
But also gross.
Right? I can get "it's not the view I signed up for" or something, but my dude you do not own the view. You want to own the view it costs a hell of a lot more
Ok the one hand, yeah. Actions have consequences. On the other hand, no amount of aggressive driving "deserves" to be responded to in the way some do, and no amount of someone doing something dangerous or illegal justifies police using unnecessary force (or else we wouldn't call it that). Once they've been subdued, it should be done.
I read the title and thought "Good, but can we do more?"
And those people, like me, probably did cancel.
I am still surprised more people didn't cancel since everyone I know who uses streaming services shares them, and most are splitting the cost.
It's yes tits, I think.
How would you implement that? Like, how do you propose to impose a tax on the company that they can't just pass along to the customer?