Well, spotify may online take 30% but they funnel.most of the money to their owners, the big record companies.
And 30% is not like the 30% steam takes. If you stream only my songs (yes, I’m on spotify) for a whole months, maybe every day 10 songs that makes 300 streams a month, each for 0.2¢. All in all 60¢. The remaining 6.40$ of the 70% of 10$ go to the most streamed artists you never heard…and these artist only get small cuts from theur labels.
Yeah, this is my go-to for all forms of content creator. If I really like a band, I’ll see them in concert and/or buy random merch. If I really like a YT creator, I’ll buy their merch or send money directly with Patreon or whatever they use. If I really like a Twitch streamer, I’ll send money to them directly.
The right holders are mostly big record companies (who own spotify) that have songs that always make it into all the playlists. The Artists don’t get much out of it. Other streaming services like deezer offer a model that is more fair for indipendant artists.
They also have staff that needs to maintain / improve the IT infrastructure. And those workers also need a salary raise to keep up with rising inflation.
Do you think the songs just magically appear on your device?
Spotify has never paid a dividend, and a quick search points to that they have done a stock buyback once. I think it’s quite safe to say that most of the money does not go to the shareholders.
Most of the money goes to the rights holders, which incidentally happen to be large shareholders in Spotify, but this claim is disingenious.
No, i think hard working artists like me put them there, and pay for the ability to do so. I’m not saying people that work at Spotify don’t deserve a paycheck, i’m saying the artists need a larger one.
Artists do definitely get shafted when it comes to royalties. But let’s not pretend they don’t need to raise prices at this point. The last one was in 2011, which means that they were probably burning investor’s money to be able to afford that.
I didn’t want to subscribe to Netflix but I subscribed after using someone else’s account for years just because my wife was insistent about it.
We already have access to someone’s Plex with Ombi and can request whatever TV shows or movies we want. But she’s too impatient to even wait for max. 24 hours for a movie or a season of a TV show to be downloaded. And sometimes requests fail, since it’s reliant upon inherently unreliable means of downloading like torrents.
Netflix is unfortunately still more convenient than piracy for the average user. But if it was up to me only, I wouldn’t have chosen to subscribe.
I host a Plex server that my friends use, they just text me what they want and I’ll get it. Is there an official request feature? Or are you just talking about asking the host like I do?
Ahh, I’ll have to look into the options I’ve been given once I’m not shitting at work. Ombi having an app is quite intriguing. What will I, the host, be notified on if at all? Is it a Plex extension that I’d only see when I go onto my server?
How does a Netflix subscription fix this? So many interesting shows and movies are missing or barely available for a month. The catalog of Netflix used to be good when they were the only streaming service but really, really tanked when every content producer started their own (and removed their stuff from Netflix).
I don’t agree with killing off a new business model that is obviously working, since traditional grocery stores could have adapted during the pandemic to offer the same fast delivery services.
But I do have a problem with how these companies deliver their “ultra-fast” services, because many of them are a menace to the general public.
Well they didn’t ban the business model. They just ruled that a warehouse can’t be classed as a store. Which is atleast to me fair sounding. Since should customer not be able to walk into that establishment and buy stuff, it isn’t a store. It is delivery warehouse. Hence it shouldn’t be allowed on zonings and placings only meant for stores. You shouldn’t run commercial warehouse out of retail zoning. Since commercial warehousing is not a retail business. Retail implies customers are directly retail consumers, not other business partners.
Normal store could still partner with a delivery company. Issue is the delivery companies don’t want to partner with normal stores, since then the store wants their cut. They want to directly rent a space and turn it into warehouse. Since that costs less per item, than paying to partner with a store. You could still operate the store as supply point. Just can’t be just a delivery point.
It was companies own decision “we don’t think this makes sense, if we can’t pinch the last penny by running our own dark store. instead of say partnering with local retail chain”.
Well they didn’t ban the business model. They just ruled that a warehouse can’t be classed as a store. Which is atleast to me fair sounding.
Yes, it sounds “fair” on the surface, but the city could have worked with these companies to provide a solution over the pandemic.
Even a basic cash register with a box of gum for sale at the counter would have made this a “store”, so the zoning issue isn’t what the problem was.
City officials in Paris were delighted by the pull-out. “The dark stores are over,” said deputy mayor Emmanuel Grégoire, evoking their “predatory capitalistic behaviour”.
… city planners said the model threatened to drain life from the public space and create a society of home-bound consumers.
But after complaints … and fears of unfair competition
I mean, really, it sounds like they simply didn’t want these businesses there at all, no matter what.
Now, consumers don’t have the service available, and traditional grocery stores won’t put in any effort to provide it. It’s a terrible outcome, IMO.
traditional grocery stores won’t put in any effort to provide it
At least where I live here in Finland, traditional retail chains are very much in the shopping delivery business. Exactly including using their vast retail stores network as their base of deliveries. However again their stores are actual stores.
The dark stores would have had choices. For example don’t run a purely dark store. Run it as combined delivery base and retail store. The walk in retail might be minority of the business, but then they could say “no, we also have walk in customers. We aren’t a dark store, the city mayor is free to walk in and come buy a bottle of cola from us.”
Same in Germany. The big grocery chains all deliver for a reasonable fee. Also, at least in big cities, most neighborhoods have a grocery store in walking distance for most people. Delivery becomes almost unnecessary (for the able-bodied folks)
The service is still available. Uber Eats and Deliveroo do partner with supermarkets and still offer grocery delivery service. They have their own issues that need to be addressed but the service is still there.
In principle I agree with the decision. Retail space should be reserved for retail and not warehouses.
I am not a city planner and don't know if these cities can do with more warehouses near the center. So perhaps there was an alternative solution but I don't want storefronts turning into dead space. This ruins the character of a city. And ghost kitchens should be next.
Uber eats isnt nearly as fast as these places, from what i understand. You could literally order something and 10 minutes later, it’s at your house. That was the main draw to using them.
Other food/grocery delivery simply couldn’t compete and i think a lot of government officials were buddy buddy with the upset shop owners who were losing business, so they had to step in.
Orlando anderson’s uncle Keefe D said they were in the car and Anderson was the shooter. Anderson was in an altercation that night with Pac and death row over a stolen chain. They were crips and death row were mob pirus bloods. It was just some gangbanger shit unfortunately. Anderson was later killed in another altercation.
Dumb question, but the headscarf's purpose is to cover the women's hair, right? So what if all protesting women go bald to piss the religious guys off, would that work?
I guarantee you, they’ll think it’s a dumb question because the abusers will just attack any women who shaves her head. They don’t actually care.
It will take solidarity among the Iranian people or outside intervention to fix these problems. Unfortunately, a lot of Iranian women are also rewarding the men who do this with sex.
we recognize this transition requires significant work by many participants and will have an impact on publishers, advertisers, and everyone involved in online advertising.
Translation: Google’s main income sources didn’t hop on the train fast enough, and Google is not going to commit financial suicide just to please its users products.
It was never about privacy, they just wanted to monopolize the tracking market by making it so only the company that owns the browser you’re running can track you. They called it FLoC at one point, but I think they rebranded it a few times since.
It’s not sbout monopolies, it’s about survival of Google’s core business model.
All other browsers whose businesses are based on selling ads, face the same risk. They’re ALL between a rock and a hard place:
On one side, the EU and other countries want to push privacy laws that protect their citizens from getting casually spied on by foreign entities
On the other, Google’s core business model relies on spying on users and reselling the use of that data to the highest bidder… many of them being foreign entities to the targetted people
If both Google/browsers/Ad sellers, and Ad purchasers, don’t come up with something that is tracking, but cuacks like privacy, the whole Ad ecosystem is at risk.
FLoC is an attempt at compromise, by having an intermediary (the browser) who gathers full tracking data, but only sells a “reasonably anonymized” version.
Of course Ad purchasers see that as an inferior product, so they aren’t keen to jump onto it… but if they all don’t get something like that going on, then everyone’s going to get shut down, with Google standing to lose the most.
From the end user’s perspective, their failure would be slightly better, but otherwise worse than the current state of things:
Less tracking on sites that didn’t rely on it in the first place
More paywalls on sites that lose Ad revenue
More sites asking people to enable full tracking in order to access their content
How I see it is that FLoC would have meant that instead of a competitive surveillance market that should not exist, we would have had a monopolized surveillance market that should not exist. IDK which is worse TBH.
FLoC was the first, pre-enshittification iteration. It would have got worse. It will get worse.
While it is true that the ad business model is changing as you describe, Google’s strategy with respect to it is also absolutely about monopolizing the ad market.
bbc.co.uk
Top