• @Stumblinbear@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8
    edit-2
    2 years 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.

    • @OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years 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.

    • @Jrockwar@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years 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
        12 years 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.