• @Stumblinbear@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    23
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They’d absolutely 100% be losing money with a $2 ad free tier. Ads make significantly more than that per user per month. Same with your “”“solution”“” for higher res video. Bandwidth is goddamn expensive.

    • @Jrockwar@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      I agree, but they’d get a large number of users to subscribe.

      And then maybe they wouldn’t complain when they raised the price to $3. And a few months later maybe $3.50. Then $5.

      A few years ago, people wouldn’t have paid over $15 for a standard Netflix tier without 4K. But the way to boil a frog is to make them nice and comfy in lukewarm water, then keep increasing the temperature slowly… So even if they lose money, maybe a low price for the ad-free YouTube could make sense, from a business perspective.

      • @Sowhatever@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        Every time Netflix rises prices it makes it to the news (let alone all the drama on twitter/reddit/etc), I don’t know what frog boiling you’re talking about.

        • @Jrockwar@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          Yet they keep posting more and more profits. Subscriber count has only increased despite the content being lower quality and prices being higher. The fact that we don’t like them increasing the prices doesn’t mean it isn’t working for them.

          I’m not arguing it will work forever, but for now, it’s been a viable strategy.

    • @OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      Plus, no way would it ever stay at that price. Nothing ever does. The only service I pay for now is spotting, and that’s just to have ad-free music on my half-hour drive to work.