←back to thread

617 points jbegley | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
a_shovel ◴[] No.42938313[source]
I initially thought that this was an announcement for a new pledge and thought, "they're going to forget about this the moment it's convenient." Then I read the article and realized, "Oh, it's already convenient."

Google is a megacorp, and while megacorps aren't fundamentally "evil" (for some definitions of evil), they are fundamentally unconcerned with goodness or morality, and any appearance that they are is purely a marketing exercise.

replies(26): >>42938388 #>>42938489 #>>42938510 #>>42938591 #>>42938601 #>>42938609 #>>42938748 #>>42938837 #>>42938863 #>>42938964 #>>42939027 #>>42940197 #>>42940547 #>>42942188 #>>42943178 #>>42944331 #>>42945189 #>>42945931 #>>42949501 #>>42950344 #>>42950383 #>>42951161 #>>42954362 #>>42958988 #>>42960021 #>>42991061 #
Retric ◴[] No.42938601[source]
> while megacorps aren't fundamentally "evil" (for some definitions of evil),

I think megacorps being evil is universal. It tends to be corrupt cop evil vs serial killer evil, but being willing to do anything for money has historically been categorized as evil behavior.

That doesn’t mean society would be better or worse off without them, but it would be interesting to see a world where companies pay vastly higher taxes as they grow.

replies(8): >>42938707 #>>42938723 #>>42938754 #>>42940638 #>>42942404 #>>42942918 #>>42947224 #>>42957518 #
zelon88 ◴[] No.42938707[source]
You're taking about pre-Clinton consumerism. That system is dead. It used to dictate that the company who could offer the best value deserved to take over most of the market.

That's old thinking. Now we have servitization. Now the business who can most efficiently offer value deserves the entire market.

Basically, iterate until you're the only one left standing and then never "sell" anything but licenses ever again.

replies(5): >>42938789 #>>42939148 #>>42939461 #>>42941704 #>>42947981 #
Ekaros ◴[] No.42938789[source]
The bait-and-switch model is absolutely amazing as well. Start by offering a service covered with ads. Then add paid tier to get rid of ads. Next add tier with payment and ads. And finally add ads back to every possible tier. Not to forget about keeping them in content all the time.
replies(4): >>42940278 #>>42941049 #>>42942412 #>>42946956 #
int_19h ◴[] No.42942412[source]
To quote the email from Hulu that recently dropped into my inbox:

> We are clarifying that, as we continue to increase the breadth and depth of the content we make available to you, circumstances may require that certain titles and types of content include ads, even in our 'no ads' or 'ad free' subscription tiers.

So at this point they aren't even bothering to rename the tier from "ad free" even as they put ads in it. Or maybe it's supposed to mean "the ads come free with it" now? Newspeak indeed.

replies(5): >>42944086 #>>42946737 #>>42953049 #>>42955960 #>>42957545 #
webspinner ◴[] No.42957545{3}[source]
Yes that's definitely newspeak! It's also the reason why I run adblock. It's gotten me in trouble a few times with streaming services, they don't love it. I still run it.
replies(1): >>43006409 #
Snowfield9571 ◴[] No.43006409{4}[source]
What do you use that blocks ads from streaming services? I’ve had no luck.
replies(1): >>43107516 #
webspinner ◴[] No.43107516{5}[source]
Right now, I use adGuard. Any adblocker such as uBlock origin should do this. However they tend to ban uBlock origin, because it's widely known. Or at least when they go after adblock, they go after that one first.
replies(1): >>43134827 #
Snowfield9571 ◴[] No.43134827{6}[source]
Oh on a browser client - yes that makes sense. I made a bad assumption that you managed to block them on streaming devices like roku or apple tv.
replies(1): >>43153651 #
1. webspinner ◴[] No.43153651{7}[source]
Not yet, lol! I like to use my computer for everything still, hah.