316
Netflix adds 13.1 million subscribers, tops revenue estimates (www.cnbc.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
122 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This is so strange to me. I guess people enjoy being ripped off and getting less and less value for their money.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

I am aware of close knit families. But when one family member had cable, we'd just have movie/game/tv watch party with the extended family. Sure, if anyone wanted to have it in their own home independent of the social viewing experience, you could always buy it for your household. And the family members that had the cable package, probably would have kept it even if we didn't come over to visit and watch a game on ESPN or some other cable TV. PW sharing is fine within the household. It's when it 's out of the household where the crackdown really happens.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Hey, I wasn't the one who switched the system to a username and passwod authorization. My "household" isn't defined by the physical location anymore than their account system is. Friends and family groups don't work however Netflix wants them to work for monetization purposes. There are blood relations who don't sleep under the same roof but hang out daily. There are friend groups that share a roof. There are couples who spend weeks at a time apart but still live together.

    It's not my fault that Netflix borked the business model and then tried to walk it back once it lured everybody else to a profit dark hole. I'm not gonna change how my social relationships work for the sake of them having a neat revenue stream with no gray areas.

    So no, PW sharing is fine, period, that's what concurrent screen limits are for. What constitutes a "household" is not for Netflix to define, and I have a social group where some expenses just float around in limbo without a clear attribution or distinction between payers and users. Welcome to existing in real life and having zero time to worry about enshittified late captialist terminally online bullshit, honestly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Netflix was always a physical household concept business model. They started by mailing DVDs to a physical address. I think the challenge has been around the technology to enforce that on the digital end where the devices allow portability of service via digital distribution and resolution of IP or other identifiers to household is not always deterministic. Netflix does get to define what household means in their terms of service for their business agreement with the customer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    No, it wasn't. They were VERY glad to suggest that password sharing was a feature, not a bug, while they were trying to drive cable TV out of business and establish a leadership position against other streaming services. They also allow you to watch on multiple screens, download files to watch offline on the go and, crucially, actively provide discounted accounts to watch on multiple locations even after reneging on the promises they made during the user acquisition stage. Nothing they do is consistent with the service being tied to households instead of accounts except trying to charge you extra for it. Hey, I know that tech start ups will eventually try to pee on me, but don't come here to tell me it's raining.

    So I say again, Netflix doesn't get to arbitrarily limit tech and back out of features just because they engaged in a suicidal business model in the pursuit of endless growth, and they don't get to redefine my social relationships for me. I am the client here, and I get to say when their offer has enshittified enough that I no longer want it.

    For now, I don't want their overpriced premium tier anymore. It's back to UHD BR for me if I want something to look shiny. And the moment they try to enforce their dumb password sharing rule I'm out entirely. I feel zero remorse or sense that I'm taking advantage of them for this. If anything, they are the ones "breaking things", so they have the responsibility to fix them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    I don't know that one cheeky tweet from their pr/marketing team mens they gladly advertised password sharing as a feature. Would need to go back to the TOS for subs back then. Multiple screens is one thing, but multiple households is another.

    I've mooched off my parent's cable account for 10+ years for streaming well after I moved to another state. As services cracked down on the practice I personally have never felt entitled to the TV services my household was not paying for. Some I chose to pay for myself, others I realize aren't for me and don't subscribe. Forl Netflix, I haven't yet broached the subject of joining accounts and paying for the additional logins option, but maybe I'll do that as a cost saving measure. But I can't think of a moral justification for why my household should be entitled to a TV service my parents pay for hundreds of miles away from where I live.

    When CEOs talked about password sharing it was under the marketing POV that those folks would eventually convert into subscribers naturally. I guess they didn't expect it to become the norm. https://techcrunch.com/2016/01/11/netflix-ceo-says-account-sharing-is-ok/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Well, tough luck. Should have been better at their jobs, then. They sure make enough money to expect them to be.

    It's not just the marketing, though, it's the non-enforcement. "Cracking down" is only a thing if you weren't cracking down before. If you allow the practice and then you don't, you've downgraded the service.

    Now, if capitalism didn't suck and technocapitalism wasn't fundamentally broken, the way this would work is you'd pay per screen and it wouldn't matter where or when those screens are used. After all, the service itself has costs related to buying media, storing media and sending media over the Internet. One screen is one data stream is one payment stream. Makes sense.

    But that's not the idea. That was never the idea. The idea of tech start ups is that they'll disrupt an old established business by losing money on purpose to grow very fast to a position of quasi-monopoly, then squeeze the newly captive audience for as much as possible. That's what Netflix was trying to do, we're all adults here, it's not a secret.

    What I'm saying is my fuse is super short on that one and I won't play that game for too long. Which is why I'm here instead of Reddit, in Mastodon instead of Twitter and in the process of buying a bunch of 4K Blu Rays. I'm not gonna tell people how to live their lives, but I'd argue that both Netflix and the Internet at large would suck much less if I wasn't in a very slim minority.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent