I’m glad I switched to a debrid service with Stremio, and after about six months moved over to Omni Content Hub. For around $32 a year with Real-Debrid, I can stream or torrent anything I want to...
I’m glad I switched to a debrid service with Stremio, and after about six months moved over to Omni Content Hub. For around $32 a year with Real-Debrid, I can stream or torrent anything I want to watch. Setup took less than an hour, and now I’ve got access to all major streaming content and movies in one place. Honestly, I just got tired of overpaying and supporting companies whose practices don’t align with my values.
Content creators don't get paid when you switch to piracy. If you're fine with that, you do you, but I will never understand why you guys can't keep your knowledge to yourselves. There's plenty of...
Content creators don't get paid when you switch to piracy. If you're fine with that, you do you, but I will never understand why you guys can't keep your knowledge to yourselves. There's plenty of ways to purchase media on the terms that you want: blu-rays, digital retailers, or streaming. The only thing that you're not able to decide is media at the price you want. When that happens, just discreetly do your thing. I have a NAS; I'm not blind to the realities of it. But I also purchase media because I can and because artists get compensation for it.
The vast majority of them barely get paid when I buy it too haha. At least with music. I suppose with the way production companies get spun up for TV and film it’s maybe a bigger piece of the pie...
The vast majority of them barely get paid when I buy it too haha. At least with music. I suppose with the way production companies get spun up for TV and film it’s maybe a bigger piece of the pie to the creators and less to the lawyers negotiating rights but I’m honestly not sure. I think pirating a piece of media and then directly wiring the production company $5 would probably end up getting them more money than spending $35 a month on streaming it.
But either way it’s feeling like the social contract has worn pretty thin, and a lot of “little people” no longer feel any obligation to hold up their end of it when it’s become very clear that none of the elites care to. What’s the point? We’re basically in a transition process to becoming a low trust society, which is ironically a situation where norms ensure that corruption and lawlessness will flourish. As it is for businesses, it applies for societal norms too.. When every interaction with big business seems like an attempt to upcharge me to remove inconveniences they’ve introduced to create something to upcharge for, and the government is actively being looted by corrupt billionnaires in plain sight, what actually buy in do any of us have to uphold these norms that around property rights that are structured to ensure those same people become fabulously wealthy at our expense?
Yes, in one very limited view of it, but no. Let's take a band for example. If you buy a song for 1.29, sure it's not a lot of that 1.29 making it to the band member by the end of it. But that...
Yes, in one very limited view of it, but no. Let's take a band for example. If you buy a song for 1.29, sure it's not a lot of that 1.29 making it to the band member by the end of it. But that 1.29 is part of an ecosystem that enabled the record label to hire out a studio and pay in advance for the work required to product an album.
If you're pirating the song and sending the 1.29 to the band directly, the macro effect of everyone doing this would break the current ecosystem, leading to no studios financially risking it on new bands in the future. Sending the 1.29 to the band directly also fails to compensate literally every other person involved in the recording except the band. Performing the music is just a slice of what it takes to create a song.
Paying via streaming or purchasing media is still the most fair way to distribute profits as we've had decades to refine the royalty model so that people in the chain get paid a portion of the direct sales. Unless you find a better way to do so, you end up weighting too heavily towards one part of it.
Arguably, we're paying too little for media these days. With inflation and the move towards and streaming, the average person is probably paying way less for media today than they were paying 20 years ago.
Yes I know how the ecosystem effects work. But like I said, nobody feels like they’re bought into the system as it exists. If every aspect of your interaction with it makes it clear that you are...
Yes I know how the ecosystem effects work. But like I said, nobody feels like they’re bought into the system as it exists. If every aspect of your interaction with it makes it clear that you are viewed as a bag of money to be squeezed as hard as possible, it naturally puts people in a mental mode where they want to avoid being squeezed in any way possible. The shared sense of contributing to an ecosystem doesn’t really work when everything is being run by guys like Zaslav out there demanding we all swallow down whatever slop they design to provide us. It’s really much more like the creators’ livelihoods are being held hostage by the execs who are demanding us to pay up.
Arguably, we're paying too little for media these days. With inflation and the move towards and streaming, the average person is probably paying way less for media today than they were paying 20 years ago.
That might have been true before but it’s quickly becoming not true as an average bundle of streaming packages approaches the prices of a cable subscription. Also, just focusing on how much people pay over time is only looking at one piece of the puzzle. The better question is “who is capturing the value?” Because productivity has actually massively increased and distribution and marketing costs have been driven down as well. It would make sense that we pay less when it costs a lot less to deliver the content. But then, as usually, most of the returns from these increases accrue to the people who control the logistics regardless of who is adding or deriving the most value.
Even if they don’t understand it I think intuitively people can feel this. They can tell when a service is cancelling shows they like for not driving enough subscriptions, the sorts of shows that may have been modestly successful under older business models or if the industry was less monopolistic and fixated on monster hits, they can tell something is off. People who care a lot about this stuff can sense that something is off.
People today eat out more than they ever have. They travel more than they ever have. People aren't unable to pay $20/month for streaming; they just have an easy and cheaper alternative to it lol....
People today eat out more than they ever have. They travel more than they ever have. People aren't unable to pay $20/month for streaming; they just have an easy and cheaper alternative to it lol. People have always been viewed as bags of money to be squeezed; someone in the 80s was under no delusion that the media companies of those times wanted more money. When people could steal cable connections, they did. When people didn't know how or were afraid, they didn't. That's the only thing that's changed in the modern era; every person today knows how to access media for cheaper.
That might have been true before but it’s quickly becoming not true as an average bundle of streaming packages approaches the prices of a cable subscription.
The fact that it's only approaching prices from over a decade ago despite money having devalued so much should show how not-unreasonable-by-historic-measures media is today. Any person can access more media than they have time to watch by paying $20/month and changing services every month. No one needs to have every streaming service available every month.
You don't have to swallow anything from Zaslav, least of all Disney content. The alternate, though, isn't to pirate it, it's just to... not watch it. It's fine. There is more content available to...
it naturally puts people in a mental mode where they want to avoid being squeezed in any way possible...
Zaslav out there demanding we all swallow down whatever slop they design to provide us.
You don't have to swallow anything from Zaslav, least of all Disney content. The alternate, though, isn't to pirate it, it's just to... not watch it. It's fine.
There is more content available to watch at prices at 0 or close enough to 0 that no human could ever watch all of it - when you add in all the content that comes with a personally agreeable price tag, that's hundreds of human lifetimes.
I don't think you should get to have your cake and eat it too. It's OK just to say, this isn't worth the price you're asking, so I'm going to not consume it.
The current ecosystem for commercial music is already broken. The large music publishers have been corrupt to the core for the greater portion of the last century, and nowadays they're part of...
The current ecosystem for commercial music is already broken. The large music publishers have been corrupt to the core for the greater portion of the last century, and nowadays they're part of even larger media comglomerates who are even more evil than they ever have been. If a person wants to make music, they don't need blessings from a megacorp; it's never been easier to self-produce and even self-distribute music.
Beyond that, arguing for how much we "should" be paying for music is kind of a moot point. Music has been around for at least as long as civilization, and the vast majority of musicians in history have been either poor, largely being paid via patronage. The massive popularity of single musicians is, to an extent, a freak thing that happened due to advent of mass reproduction recordings. But we do not need massive industries to produce those records anymore. We are living in a time when a person can download a free music-making app on their phone, upload it to any number of places that will host it for free, and call themselves a musician.
Does anyone actually do that? Pirate a movie, go find the like 500 people that made the movie and wire them all 5 dollars? Pirate a song and go find the songwriter and audio technitions and...
Does anyone actually do that? Pirate a movie, go find the like 500 people that made the movie and wire them all 5 dollars?
Pirate a song and go find the songwriter and audio technitions and producers and of course the primary performing artists and wire them 5 dollars?
I think it happens very occasionally with small-time creators, like at the patreon level. I don’t think anyone does it for, like, the company that produces “The Office.” I pirated a lot of comic...
I think it happens very occasionally with small-time creators, like at the patreon level. I don’t think anyone does it for, like, the company that produces “The Office.”
I pirated a lot of comic books when I was in college and broke and then when I grew up and had money I did end up buying trades of those issues when they came out even though I had no intention of reading it as a sort of “penance.” But I think that’s unusual and also not really helping since creators actually need the support when they’re starting out and not established in their careers yet, not 10+ years later when they’ve already become successful enough that someone rereleased their work as an anthology.
If I'm reading correctly, it seems like Real-Debrid is a content caching service, and Streamio/Omni Content Hub are just streaming media players that can connect to various services (including...
If I'm reading correctly, it seems like Real-Debrid is a content caching service, and Streamio/Omni Content Hub are just streaming media players that can connect to various services (including Real-Debrid). I would be concerned about the longevity of something like Real-Debrid, as it seems they may be a pretty big target for copyright claims. Maybe I'm missing something though?
Real Debrid has already been sued and the effects were rather negligible. They had to purge their cache of a bunch of content and I think add those torrent infohashes to a block list. They also...
Real Debrid has already been sued and the effects were rather negligible. They had to purge their cache of a bunch of content and I think add those torrent infohashes to a block list. They also had to remove some feature I don't recall, but it overall still works fine. Blocking some infohashes does little because people frequently upload alternatives with slight changes that mean new hashes (different encoding, different audio or subtitle language options, different resolutions, etc.).
There are also a bunch of other debrid services, including ones that headquarter in areas that aren't as interested in accepting copyright suits. RD is in France, but as an example that I hope I remember correctly TorBox is in South Africa and seems to be depending a bit on that South Africa is less likely to care about copyright infringement of Western media empires.
A rather standard setup is Stremio + Torrentio + Debrid. Stremio would claim they don't support piracy, but also don't monitor addons. Torrentio would claim all they do is wrap existing public trackers in a Stremio addon, but don't have any data of their own. Debrid would claim they aren't for piracy and it's on the users to not download copyrighted content, not them to invasively monitor what every torrent contains. A weird liability shell game.
OK, thanks for the context. I'd still be skeptical of the debrid services since they seem to be crossing that (very fuzzy) boundary of actually storing content. Streamio and Torrentio would seem...
OK, thanks for the context. I'd still be skeptical of the debrid services since they seem to be crossing that (very fuzzy) boundary of actually storing content. Streamio and Torrentio would seem to have better legal shields IMO.
I'm not really interested in debating whether the service itself is right or wrong, to be clear. I'm just imagining that it might suck to pay for a service that could be taken away without notice. FWIW, I've had similar thoughts about perfectly legal services like Spotify suddenly disappearing half of the music I enjoy. 🤷♂️
That is a real concern. It usually gets handwaved away though with claims that they'll just switch to a different debrid. On the side of "I'll just switch": the torrents themselves are the...
That is a real concern. It usually gets handwaved away though with claims that they'll just switch to a different debrid.
On the side of "I'll just switch": the torrents themselves are the content, not the debrid cache. So if someone wants the content on another service the main price to pay is just the time for it to download from torrent again. Since debrid services tend to not really house much other state beyond "here are the torrents you've added and whether or not they're currently in cache" this argument is mostly fair. To use the Stremio example, their Stremio account stores what they're watching and its progress and all that on their end and the debrid only gets involved when Stremio directly requests a specific file to play.
On the side of "losing it would suck": debrid caches can be rather significant. There can be, and often is, content with 0 seeders but is available due to having previously been cached. When someone switches debrid providers they also switch to the new provider's cache, which may or may not be significantly smaller. There's also the obvious direct monetary loss for users from that a service that is being forced to shut down is unlikely to refund the time that is paid for but not serviced.
And yeah, I'm not trying to debate anything either. I just find this topic interesting.
That they're increasing prices every single year is already gutsy enough. With people thoroughly sick of Marvel, and a year of Agent Orange and economic uncertainty they're not skipping the hike...
That they're increasing prices every single year is already gutsy enough. With people thoroughly sick of Marvel, and a year of Agent Orange and economic uncertainty they're not skipping the hike this year?
Disney doesn't have backing from Carr, who, since last week, has denied threatening ABC's broadcasting licenses over Kimmel's statements. This week, he aimed to direct all blame for Kimmel being pulled on Disney, saying, "Disney on its own made the business decision not to have him air..."
Serves them right for pre-emptively kowtowing to power
Man if they could just get Bob Iger and Robert Downey Jr back they could Make America 2018 Again, but that's a ridiculous pipe dream that would definitely without fail solve the problems Chapek...
Man if they could just get Bob Iger and Robert Downey Jr back they could Make America 2018 Again, but that's a ridiculous pipe dream that would definitely without fail solve the problems Chapek introduced but that will never ever happen.
Don't feel bad you're not alone, as I write this your whoosh has twice the upvotes compared to the joke you missed. Great illustration of internet discourse :D
Don't feel bad you're not alone, as I write this your whoosh has twice the upvotes compared to the joke you missed. Great illustration of internet discourse :D
I don't know, these days I mostly don't care about mainstream streaming services anymore as the value is not really there neither in price but mostly just the deliberate decisions about the design...
I don't know, these days I mostly don't care about mainstream streaming services anymore as the value is not really there neither in price but mostly just the deliberate decisions about the design of the sites and discoverability of content.
Mostly I read free webseries and fanfictions whose curated selection is on average more entertaining that the similar in mainstream streaming media. Not to say good series and films don't exists, I just don't seem to find much in recent offerings.
We've been using my Sister-In-Laws subscription and honestly after the Kimmel stuff, I should have encouraged her to cancel. I very much doubt she would have, but we barely use it anyway,...
We've been using my Sister-In-Laws subscription and honestly after the Kimmel stuff, I should have encouraged her to cancel. I very much doubt she would have, but we barely use it anyway, generally just watching Netflix, Youtube or downloading whatever we want and storing it on our local server.
But the price increases suggest to me that they're not really hurting for subscribers, even after a boycott. Seems that if they were, they'd hold steady or decrease prices to bring people back and that's not happening, so they must be in a fairly strong position.
Or the price increase is a yearly program by a different team, so as long as there isn't a from the top directive they were going to do this, regardless of current events. Or, that's what they'll...
Or the price increase is a yearly program by a different team, so as long as there isn't a from the top directive they were going to do this, regardless of current events. Or, that's what they'll say and gives them room for less of an increase this year to show contrition
I’m glad I switched to a debrid service with Stremio, and after about six months moved over to Omni Content Hub. For around $32 a year with Real-Debrid, I can stream or torrent anything I want to watch. Setup took less than an hour, and now I’ve got access to all major streaming content and movies in one place. Honestly, I just got tired of overpaying and supporting companies whose practices don’t align with my values.
Content creators don't get paid when you switch to piracy. If you're fine with that, you do you, but I will never understand why you guys can't keep your knowledge to yourselves. There's plenty of ways to purchase media on the terms that you want: blu-rays, digital retailers, or streaming. The only thing that you're not able to decide is media at the price you want. When that happens, just discreetly do your thing. I have a NAS; I'm not blind to the realities of it. But I also purchase media because I can and because artists get compensation for it.
The vast majority of them barely get paid when I buy it too haha. At least with music. I suppose with the way production companies get spun up for TV and film it’s maybe a bigger piece of the pie to the creators and less to the lawyers negotiating rights but I’m honestly not sure. I think pirating a piece of media and then directly wiring the production company $5 would probably end up getting them more money than spending $35 a month on streaming it.
But either way it’s feeling like the social contract has worn pretty thin, and a lot of “little people” no longer feel any obligation to hold up their end of it when it’s become very clear that none of the elites care to. What’s the point? We’re basically in a transition process to becoming a low trust society, which is ironically a situation where norms ensure that corruption and lawlessness will flourish. As it is for businesses, it applies for societal norms too.. When every interaction with big business seems like an attempt to upcharge me to remove inconveniences they’ve introduced to create something to upcharge for, and the government is actively being looted by corrupt billionnaires in plain sight, what actually buy in do any of us have to uphold these norms that around property rights that are structured to ensure those same people become fabulously wealthy at our expense?
Yes, in one very limited view of it, but no. Let's take a band for example. If you buy a song for 1.29, sure it's not a lot of that 1.29 making it to the band member by the end of it. But that 1.29 is part of an ecosystem that enabled the record label to hire out a studio and pay in advance for the work required to product an album.
If you're pirating the song and sending the 1.29 to the band directly, the macro effect of everyone doing this would break the current ecosystem, leading to no studios financially risking it on new bands in the future. Sending the 1.29 to the band directly also fails to compensate literally every other person involved in the recording except the band. Performing the music is just a slice of what it takes to create a song.
Paying via streaming or purchasing media is still the most fair way to distribute profits as we've had decades to refine the royalty model so that people in the chain get paid a portion of the direct sales. Unless you find a better way to do so, you end up weighting too heavily towards one part of it.
Arguably, we're paying too little for media these days. With inflation and the move towards and streaming, the average person is probably paying way less for media today than they were paying 20 years ago.
Yes I know how the ecosystem effects work. But like I said, nobody feels like they’re bought into the system as it exists. If every aspect of your interaction with it makes it clear that you are viewed as a bag of money to be squeezed as hard as possible, it naturally puts people in a mental mode where they want to avoid being squeezed in any way possible. The shared sense of contributing to an ecosystem doesn’t really work when everything is being run by guys like Zaslav out there demanding we all swallow down whatever slop they design to provide us. It’s really much more like the creators’ livelihoods are being held hostage by the execs who are demanding us to pay up.
That might have been true before but it’s quickly becoming not true as an average bundle of streaming packages approaches the prices of a cable subscription. Also, just focusing on how much people pay over time is only looking at one piece of the puzzle. The better question is “who is capturing the value?” Because productivity has actually massively increased and distribution and marketing costs have been driven down as well. It would make sense that we pay less when it costs a lot less to deliver the content. But then, as usually, most of the returns from these increases accrue to the people who control the logistics regardless of who is adding or deriving the most value.
Even if they don’t understand it I think intuitively people can feel this. They can tell when a service is cancelling shows they like for not driving enough subscriptions, the sorts of shows that may have been modestly successful under older business models or if the industry was less monopolistic and fixated on monster hits, they can tell something is off. People who care a lot about this stuff can sense that something is off.
People today eat out more than they ever have. They travel more than they ever have. People aren't unable to pay $20/month for streaming; they just have an easy and cheaper alternative to it lol. People have always been viewed as bags of money to be squeezed; someone in the 80s was under no delusion that the media companies of those times wanted more money. When people could steal cable connections, they did. When people didn't know how or were afraid, they didn't. That's the only thing that's changed in the modern era; every person today knows how to access media for cheaper.
The fact that it's only approaching prices from over a decade ago despite money having devalued so much should show how not-unreasonable-by-historic-measures media is today. Any person can access more media than they have time to watch by paying $20/month and changing services every month. No one needs to have every streaming service available every month.
You don't have to swallow anything from Zaslav, least of all Disney content. The alternate, though, isn't to pirate it, it's just to... not watch it. It's fine.
There is more content available to watch at prices at 0 or close enough to 0 that no human could ever watch all of it - when you add in all the content that comes with a personally agreeable price tag, that's hundreds of human lifetimes.
I don't think you should get to have your cake and eat it too. It's OK just to say, this isn't worth the price you're asking, so I'm going to not consume it.
The current ecosystem for commercial music is already broken. The large music publishers have been corrupt to the core for the greater portion of the last century, and nowadays they're part of even larger media comglomerates who are even more evil than they ever have been. If a person wants to make music, they don't need blessings from a megacorp; it's never been easier to self-produce and even self-distribute music.
Beyond that, arguing for how much we "should" be paying for music is kind of a moot point. Music has been around for at least as long as civilization, and the vast majority of musicians in history have been either poor, largely being paid via patronage. The massive popularity of single musicians is, to an extent, a freak thing that happened due to advent of mass reproduction recordings. But we do not need massive industries to produce those records anymore. We are living in a time when a person can download a free music-making app on their phone, upload it to any number of places that will host it for free, and call themselves a musician.
Does anyone actually do that? Pirate a movie, go find the like 500 people that made the movie and wire them all 5 dollars?
Pirate a song and go find the songwriter and audio technitions and producers and of course the primary performing artists and wire them 5 dollars?
I think it happens very occasionally with small-time creators, like at the patreon level. I don’t think anyone does it for, like, the company that produces “The Office.”
I pirated a lot of comic books when I was in college and broke and then when I grew up and had money I did end up buying trades of those issues when they came out even though I had no intention of reading it as a sort of “penance.” But I think that’s unusual and also not really helping since creators actually need the support when they’re starting out and not established in their careers yet, not 10+ years later when they’ve already become successful enough that someone rereleased their work as an anthology.
If I'm reading correctly, it seems like Real-Debrid is a content caching service, and Streamio/Omni Content Hub are just streaming media players that can connect to various services (including Real-Debrid). I would be concerned about the longevity of something like Real-Debrid, as it seems they may be a pretty big target for copyright claims. Maybe I'm missing something though?
Real Debrid has already been sued and the effects were rather negligible. They had to purge their cache of a bunch of content and I think add those torrent infohashes to a block list. They also had to remove some feature I don't recall, but it overall still works fine. Blocking some infohashes does little because people frequently upload alternatives with slight changes that mean new hashes (different encoding, different audio or subtitle language options, different resolutions, etc.).
There are also a bunch of other debrid services, including ones that headquarter in areas that aren't as interested in accepting copyright suits. RD is in France, but as an example that I hope I remember correctly TorBox is in South Africa and seems to be depending a bit on that South Africa is less likely to care about copyright infringement of Western media empires.
A rather standard setup is Stremio + Torrentio + Debrid. Stremio would claim they don't support piracy, but also don't monitor addons. Torrentio would claim all they do is wrap existing public trackers in a Stremio addon, but don't have any data of their own. Debrid would claim they aren't for piracy and it's on the users to not download copyrighted content, not them to invasively monitor what every torrent contains. A weird liability shell game.
Seems fair exchange when mega Corps and governments do the same shell game on us for lack of accountability and environmental clean ups
OK, thanks for the context. I'd still be skeptical of the debrid services since they seem to be crossing that (very fuzzy) boundary of actually storing content. Streamio and Torrentio would seem to have better legal shields IMO.
I'm not really interested in debating whether the service itself is right or wrong, to be clear. I'm just imagining that it might suck to pay for a service that could be taken away without notice. FWIW, I've had similar thoughts about perfectly legal services like Spotify suddenly disappearing half of the music I enjoy. 🤷♂️
That is a real concern. It usually gets handwaved away though with claims that they'll just switch to a different debrid.
On the side of "I'll just switch": the torrents themselves are the content, not the debrid cache. So if someone wants the content on another service the main price to pay is just the time for it to download from torrent again. Since debrid services tend to not really house much other state beyond "here are the torrents you've added and whether or not they're currently in cache" this argument is mostly fair. To use the Stremio example, their Stremio account stores what they're watching and its progress and all that on their end and the debrid only gets involved when Stremio directly requests a specific file to play.
On the side of "losing it would suck": debrid caches can be rather significant. There can be, and often is, content with 0 seeders but is available due to having previously been cached. When someone switches debrid providers they also switch to the new provider's cache, which may or may not be significantly smaller. There's also the obvious direct monetary loss for users from that a service that is being forced to shut down is unlikely to refund the time that is paid for but not serviced.
And yeah, I'm not trying to debate anything either. I just find this topic interesting.
Is that on your Apple TV or what? I'd like to hear more about it, thanks.
That they're increasing prices every single year is already gutsy enough. With people thoroughly sick of Marvel, and a year of Agent Orange and economic uncertainty they're not skipping the hike this year?
Serves them right for pre-emptively kowtowing to power
Man if they could just get Bob Iger and Robert Downey Jr back they could Make America 2018 Again, but that's a ridiculous pipe dream that would definitely without fail solve the problems Chapek introduced but that will never ever happen.
Bob Iger is still in charge of Disney since Chapek was ousted at the end of 2022. These things are happening under his leadership.
They also have RDJ back so I suspect this was tongue in cheek
i felt very clever lol
Oops, lol. Sorry for the whoosh.
Don't feel bad you're not alone, as I write this your whoosh has twice the upvotes compared to the joke you missed. Great illustration of internet discourse :D
My take away here is that this is all RDJ's fault. Damn you, Iron Man!
I don't know, these days I mostly don't care about mainstream streaming services anymore as the value is not really there neither in price but mostly just the deliberate decisions about the design of the sites and discoverability of content.
Mostly I read free webseries and fanfictions whose curated selection is on average more entertaining that the similar in mainstream streaming media. Not to say good series and films don't exists, I just don't seem to find much in recent offerings.
We've been using my Sister-In-Laws subscription and honestly after the Kimmel stuff, I should have encouraged her to cancel. I very much doubt she would have, but we barely use it anyway, generally just watching Netflix, Youtube or downloading whatever we want and storing it on our local server.
But the price increases suggest to me that they're not really hurting for subscribers, even after a boycott. Seems that if they were, they'd hold steady or decrease prices to bring people back and that's not happening, so they must be in a fairly strong position.
Or the price increase is a yearly program by a different team, so as long as there isn't a from the top directive they were going to do this, regardless of current events. Or, that's what they'll say and gives them room for less of an increase this year to show contrition