The pay-per-use concept is exactly what micro payments was meant for and this is ideal for the Lightning Network.
I mean there are use cases for LN for sure but we also have to look at how convenient they are. Imagine watching a movie and your balance runs out. You will have to load up your cold wallet and make a transaction to your hot wallet and then continue watching the movie. This could ruin many moments.
The same concept can be applied for music streaming services like Spotify.
I don't see how this will be useful. You can hear to the full version of the song on youtube before making the decision of buying it.
Most people here don't complain about fees because they generate most of what they have through campaigns, tasks, etc. People putting fiat on the table felt the pain of the high on-chain fees last year, so it really matters. Another thing is that it just doesn't make sense to pay $9 for something that also requires a $9 (or higher) on-chain fee, which is why LN is so important.
No one is denying the advantages LN brings to the table. My statement was for the support of the LN.
Netflix is just one of the many. Every streaming service has its own selection of series/movies/documentaries that it offers, which would require people to have numerous paid (monthly) subscriptions just to watch what they are interested in. This also applies to porn sites where people mostly look for specific scenes and photo sets of their favorite models.
I mean these subscriptions don't cost more than a meal at a good restaurant hence why a subscription model makes sense. we can't push things everywhere. I mean the LN can bring plenty of new concepts of payments to the table but are they really necessary and benefit the average joe?