this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
125 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
60047 readers
3120 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is why 20 years ago we had CDs and ripped them to hard drives. Streaming is a sham when you pay continually for access.
CDs were sooo much more expensive than streaming. I would spend $12 to $18 per CD in early 2000's dollars and buy multiple CDs per month.
This feels like trying to explain forests to someone who only wants to tell me about their favorite tree.
I get how the technology has changed. As an elder millennial, my entire life has been a constant shift of technology. From analog to digital, and back again- from betamax to DVDs, from 8 tracks to tapes to pocket rockers to mini discs to ipods. And including resurgences as people "discovered" the benefits of vinyl.
My point is that this new paradigm has shifted ownership of what we pay for away from consumers, to give gatekeeping power to corporate entities that can shut down, or shut off access, on a whim. And what's the ROI? Increasing access costs without ownership is just a more expensive lease.
I am simply arguing that physical media puts consumers in a greater position of control over the property they have paid for than streaming. And I am intimating that it's by design that technology "leaders" have moved away from allowing people to OWN what they buy.