Rakly3 Why make the distinction between accounts and users?
You know what makes this more frustrating? I remember pretty distinctly saying year ago that instead of only offering inflated 7 & 8K videos that you should offer 5K or 6K versions for those videos for those of us who do not want to waste data or bandwidth and you yourself liked the comment so I know you read it. It seems the best solution for the end user who actually uses the site is to severely limit the number of original source videos or super high resolution SLR encodes further, which has been portrayed as the problem with data usage, but offer 5K or 6K without limits so that if you want the videos, you can still download the videos but if you want the pristine versions eating all the bandwidth, you have to be far more selective. You want to block multiple simultaneous downloads? Go for it. Limit it to one at a time. Don't want people downloading full videos? By all means, offer partial downloads of just the segments they want.
It seems an awful lot like meeting the consumer halfway on a fair compromise to getting what they paid for is not the goal here.
Rakly3 The point is mute anyway. Most changes happen for completely different reasons than what users think.
If not 'fair use of network,' exploiting monthly subscriptions, or data volume, then what are the reasons? If those points are moot, then what is it? Because the number of downloads available has been consistently shrinking, so without a convincing reason, it seems more like this is just another push to eliminate downloads altogether and force streaming. Why would a business want to force streaming if exploiting monthly subs isn't a reason to block downloads? Maybe once everyone is forced to stream and stream from the app then also charge a subscription for the video player app itself as well? Maybe because when streaming it harvests more data from the user to then sell that data?
