"Muso, a research firm that studies piracy, concluded that the high prices of streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music are pushing people back towards illegal downloads. Spotify raised its prices by one dollar last year to $10.99 a month, the same price as Apple Music. Instead of coughing up $132 a year, more consumers are using websites that rip audio straight out of YouTube videos, and convert them into downloadable MP3 or .wav files.
Roughly 40% of the music piracy Muso tracked was from these “YouTube-to-MP3” sites. The original YouTube-to-MP3 site died from a record label lawsuit, but other copycats do the same thing. A simple Google search yields dozens of blue links to these sites, and they’re, by far, the largest form of audio piracy on the internet."
The problem isn’t price. People just don’t want to pay for a bad experience. What Apple Music and Spotify have in common is that their software is bloated with useless shit and endlessly annoying user-hostile design. Plus Steve Jobs himself said it back in 2007: “people want to own their music.” Having it, organizing it, curating it is half the fun. Not fun is pressing play one day and finding a big chunk of your carefully constructed playlist is “no longer in your library.” Screw that.
If y’all got kids, don’t forget to teach them how MP3’s and actual media files work, I see many young people nowadays don’t even realize you can locally store your own music in a portable device-agnostic format. They’re beginning to get used to the idea of not owning anything.
First you’re gonna have to teach them how file systems work since they’ve spent a life saving everything to Google Drive or OneDrive and using a search term to find their files.
I’m continually astonished how I thought grunt-work IT jobs would fade away as my generation and younger aged into the workforce becoming ever more technologically literate. Then the iPhone my rich friends bought in highschool became the new standard for interfaces.
Now I’m helping people several years younger and much older than me navigate the machines they use for their jobs.
Yeah funny, right? I thought the same thing. It’d just be the older people and the younger would be more technically literate. But companies started abstracting a lot of things now and it’s both the older and younger that struggle with IT literacy.
I think thin clients with VDIs will be the future and both make this stuff even more abstracted for users and also bring in the age of subscribing to workstations. At work, it’ll start by just plopping stuff in your documents folder or personal folder or whatever and/or the desktop. They’ll live on a network share and the VDIs will revert to snapshots to be ‘fresh’ every time but the users won’t really know that. Their stuff will be plopped down like it is local every time and ‘follow’ them from VDI to VDI.
Then I think this will push to the home market and instead of spending a lot of money up front, you just get a cheap thin client, probably eventually a small little box with USB ports and mini-DP or whatever. You’ll then pay for the tiers you want. Want just a workstation to check mail on and do ‘web apps’ type stuff? $5 with a whole 5GB of personal space or whatever. Then there’ll be “productivity tiers” with pretty much the same stuff but more CPU, RAM and a small amount of vGPU allocated and you can install programs with something like 500 GB of personal space. There’ll be a “pro” version with more of everything and a “gamer” version with a lot of everything probably costing something like $30/$40 a month starting out per device.
And of course eventually, you’ll be getting ads to “keep the prices increases down” and then that won’t matter anymore and you’ll be given the option to pay for ad-free add-ons, time on the workstation and so-on. Prices will raise nearly every year. Thin clients will turn into all-in-ones and be basically tablets where you buy based on screen sizes and probably able to wireless connect more displays.
Technology in computing will become more abstracted and IT’s specialists will shrink once again because actual tech literacy will decrease.
I think the only reason it hasn’t started yet is due to Internet throughput availability but that’s quickly changing.
A boring dystopia indeed.
deleted by creator
The main issue to solve is kids not having access to a computer at home, whether it be lack of incentive or money. Most people don’t even own a laptop anymore, so the only computer time they get is in a school setting.
Once the majority of schools have a system in place for most homework to be done on a PC, then there may be some creative ways to incentivise more PC adoption… again. It’s like we’ve gone back to the early 90s again where only kids who were really interested in computing knew anything about it.
deleted by creator
Thats the exact reason I just donated my old pc to my sisters kids as a “practice computer”, encouraging them to go rummaging around.
What woke me up was all these 20-somethings in our uni having trouble using computers. Damn, how can you get through our secondary education in our country and not know how to use a normal Windows pc?
I’m convinced primary education as a system is engineered to teach you how to be a patriotic, service-consuming, rentable employee first and foremost. (Humans As A Service?) Secondary education just levels that up so you require more expensive proprietary tool licenses for the potential privilege of doing more complicated jobs. (Funny how all the critical-thinking specialties are derided for not making tons and tons of money.)
Thank God for the good teachers that inspired us in spite of all the odds against us (and them).
It also blows my mind how much schools and universities are struggling for funding, but take the bait and use hyper-proprietary black-box commercial software for everything from OSs to coursework. Professors outside of CompSci will be shocked and confused to see a student using Linux, and courses love to use stupid niche features of Microsoft Office so your LibreOffice work won’t be good enough.
That brief, magical moment in time of about 2 decades in the “home computer revolution” of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, where you had to be an actual geek to be able to effectively use a computer are gone. That’s how we all got trained. By being forced to learn if we wanted to do anything. Now, it’s one-button instant gratification.
The eternal September.
Partially yeah, but atleast Google Drive and Onedrive still have folders to sort and share more than one file, which sometimes gets the kids to actually use those features.
What also killed the basic understanding of PCs, is the way in which everything is now done “in-Browser”. No longer do you need to open Word to edit a document, nor do you need to open Photoshop. It’s all done in the browser, and if you want to simply “save” a document, well, just don’t close the tab and you’re golden.
I remember my kids crying the first time they lost their school assignments using Microsoft Office at home. They’d only ever used Google docs and no one taught them to save. They also had no idea what the save icon is or represented (floppy disk).
> my kids
> no one taught them
That was kind of your job m8
My RAM is screaming.
Just download more.
you wouldn’t download a RAM
Indeed! I introduced my kids to this through the example of our in-house Plex server, and it worked really well.
First they “get it” because Plex works like the streaming services they’re used to and they think “oh neat mom can do that too.”
Then they like it more because I show them how its streaming we can control ourselves - streaming home movies and pics really impresses this upon them.
And then they see that there’s no magic to where the content comes from – it’s a digital file on Plex just as it is on Netflix.
Voila. Free thinkers for life.
If I ever do have children, this is one of the things I want to teach them.
Hopefully, it turns into an important memory for them.
Learning about technology from their parents’ and how it isn’t magic.
This makes me sad. I had so much fun growing up learning about compression and encoding, ripping, tagging, spectral analysis. Listening to 24/96 vinyl FLACs on my parents old stereo with my pinky up. Hanging out with a bunch of 40-year olds on IRC. Good times, man
Heh, now we’re the 40-olds on IRC.
I am Gen Z, and my whole social life is on IRC. So weird to be around so many people who were online since before my parents even had a computer…
No worries. They’ll reinvent the wheel eventually.
No, they’ll think the corporate dystopia they’ve grown up into is normal. They don’t know that corporations tried and failed to stop people from owning and using VCRs. They think it’s their duty to sit and watch ads from their favorite creators like passive cows.
This is a pretty bleak outlook on the intelligence of kids
It’s an outlook developed by watching the peers I grew up around and the things that they accepted and didn’t question because it was just “normal” by the time they were children.
For example, a lot of kids in my generation grew up with Cable Television, but by the time I was a kid, cable had lost it’s initial “we’re better than broadcast because we don’t have ads” and people just accepted the ads. Most people never knew there was a “time before” when there weren’t any ads, and because of their lack of knowledge of it ever being any different, they never had reason to question why cable television needed ads now when previously it had not.
Once things become a societal “norm,” the people who grow up around that norm tend not to question it simply because they have never known anything else. It’s not meant to be an indictment on the youth as much as the obvious “you can’t know what you don’t know.” If they don’t ever know it was ever any different, how can they expected to do anything but accept how things are? Especially when the adults around them don’t kick up a fuss and keep paying for Netflix when they keep getting screwed. They are learning that this is normal behavior and that it’s normal to get screwed by a company and just keep paying for it.
Wait, did the pitch for cable TV at one point really include that there were no ads?
Yes, it could be argued it was the pitch, much like Netflix originally was. It’s actually kind of wild how the streaming services are literally following the same path as cable television.
Here’s a New York Times article from 1981 about it:
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-invaded-by-commercials.html
Also, I’ll just point out that people in here not knowing about this literally proves my point that if the changeover happened before you were born/early in your childhood, you’ll just accept the change as “the norm” because you never knew anything different and had no reasons to question it. It’s not about the intelligence of any generation of kids, it’s just an inherent part of not knowing what happened before you were born, which is something every human experiences. It takes dedicated effort to find out that “the norm” isn’t “the norm,” for anyone. Also, on the flip, we’re not particularly special for figuring out “the norm” isn’t “the norm.”
Wow, I had no idea. I didn’t even really know that cable was at one time the fancy premium version of TV.
One thing I think we can say though is that a big part of why Netflix was disruptive was the promise of watching uninterrupted-- No ads. So even though folks thought “of course cable has ads, that’s the norm,” they also flocked to services that provided ad-free alternatives.
I’m always surprised when I see someone just sit through a YouTube ad or something, instead of beating their chest and screaming “WHERE uBLOCK? HOW ADS?” which alarms the neighbors but they’re used to it at this point (which is what I do)… But it’s encouraging that people still voted with their feet by dropping cable as soon as a less extractive experience emerged. It gives me hope that the endgame of enshittification is irrelevance.
Have you ever seen cable TV abbreviated “CATV?” That’s because the original original pitch for it was as “Community Antenna TV,” wherein it would receive local over-the-air broadcasts and then send them over a wire to folks who couldn’t receive them properly because they lived behind a mountain or whatever.
The second pitch was getting original content on cable-only channels, but because your subscription was helping pay to license it (unlike the over-the-air channels, which they – at least initially – got for free), they would be ad-free.
Of course, nowadays cable companies have been made to pay retransmission fees to broadcast TV networks and cable-only channels are showing ads too, so both content sources are double-dipping revenue streams.
(Side note: that link is to a site trying to sell some kind of service, so ignore the last part of the page – the explanations at the beginning of it are quite good, though.)
Wow TIL. The double-dipping is pretty sketchy, but not at all surprising. It seems hubristic for Netflix to court the same concepts… I guess cable/network TV probably thought they were untouchable so they could squeeze the consumer, then Netflix happens… Now Netflix thinks it’s untouchable and it can squeeze the consumer. Hmm, seems familiar.