• iAmTheTot@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why should quality be a tier?

    The cost of storing and serving 4k content is much, much higher than 1080p.

    • CmdrShepard
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The cost of storing and serving 1080p is much, much higher than not storing or serving any content yet they still do that. It’s what we’re paying them for. Furthermore ‘streaming 4k’ is pretty compressed already and comes nowhere near the level of bitrate of a 4k bluray.

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really. I mean there is, but both bandwidth and storage get cheaper by the day. Delivering 4k content today is probably an order of magnitude cheaper per bit than delivering HD content was a decade ago.

    • Pavidus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would say that was a valid argument a decade ago when 4k came out. I’m completely baffled that we STILL market 1080 as high quality. Furthermore, I would say that was a valid argument if these fucks weren’t taking in record profits over and over and over again. It’s not a cost issue. It’s a greed issue.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Storing is done once by simply offering a 4k option*.

      Bandwidth is an ongoing cost per view, but no where near the increased plan cost to cover it.

      *technically more than once because of distributed CDNs which would need to scale to demand. But negligible.

      • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean they cache it all via CDN. In some cases that means they’ve got 1000 copies of a popular show sitting on CDNs around the world, and in some cases that means they are dynamically pushing content to CDNs on demand.