If they did, were ad free, and had a back catalog of things to watch, I'd pay that. Sadly, they don't offer that and the ads are a deal breaker. They instead get no viewership from me, paid or otherwise.
The HBO ads shown in their Now streams can be skipped, at least. I wonder if the same is true for Netflix ads.
I don't know. I don't need to decrypt anything. The television I watch is unencrypted. I don't pay anything per month for renting hardware or subscribing to channels which are already beamed through my home.
I used to pay for cable channels which, to make room for more internet bandwidth, were further and further compressed every month until compression artefacts were so common as to be distracting. It wasn't long before the service they were providing, which was getting worse over time, was not worth the cost they were asking, which was getting worse over time. That was ten years ago now.
If I were recording it, we would be talking about something different than live TV. I was replying to a comment about how a HTPC was necessary to watch live TV.
Why does one need a PC sitting next to the TV to watch TV? My TV has a tuner.
So, capitalism is not mandatory, then. It is the best system we have found, thus far. As you agree, there are certain issues with capitalism. Do you feel we should not look for alternatives or improvements, then?
In this particular case, it appears that the owners of the capital enterprise attempted to shift the risk onto the employees by not paying them their due when the business was doing poorly.
You say it is necessary but then give three examples of alternatives you consider worse. Which is it, the only option, or, in your opinion, the best option?
In many jurisdictions, Uber drivers are not required by law to accept your destination if it does not please them. A taxi faces consequences if they do that. The playing field is not even and Uber does not follow the same rules.
But when you call for a cab, they collect your number and location, and since they do this for everyone, pretty soon they have about as much information. And when you pay that single time with a credit card, bam - it all gets connected to a name. Without any privacy policies attached, not even a toothless one.
A taxi company knowing my phone number and location of pickup and location of drop-off is not "about as much information" as having my spacial coordinates and contact list at all times. Not even the same order of magnitude.
Your lament over taxi companies not having privacy policies is kind of odd. First, such policies protect the company, not you. Second, taxi companies have to follow rules, many of which cover privacy, which Uber flaunts.
It's interesting that the most walled of all the gardens actually gives the user the most control over their device.
Some operating systems have more granular permission options. It is certainly possible to be sensible with how much data one gives to a particular application.
Cost per issue is an objective measure. Cost per unit value ("actual news and analysis") is a subjective measure. While I personally agree with you, I feel objective data makes a better answer to the question of publication funding.
The Economist sells 1.5 million issues per week. Their subscriptions number over 1 million. Their subscriptions are growing almost 50% per year. They also charge more than most weekly magazines.