Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix shares decline after reporting disappointing subscriber growth

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 191 posts

Re: Netflix shares decline after reporting disappointing subscriber growth

#171

Post by axaxs »

majewsky wrote: post #161
lozenge wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are spending just as much time watching TV as they ever did. If they've always paid $70/month for it, why would the entertainment companies settle for people paying less now?

People are paying $70/month for TV in the US!? In Germany, the basic HD TV package costs €60/year (not per month) if you want it. And also you have to pay €18/month for the public broadcasts (that part is non-negotiable). So that comes out to €23/month if you're watching over satellite. Cable TV sometimes imposes additional fees (€8/month in my apartment building). There is also Sky, a pay-TV provider, but I don't kn…

Some people pay even more! I had relatives paying well over 120 dollars per month! The general pricing scheme for both phone and cable, well really most private subscription companies, is to hook people in with a deal with an absurd price after a set time is over, and tack on tons of little gotchas. It's borderline theft IMO. Those who know better then have to decide whether it's worth the hassle of threatening to cancel each year...

Re: Netflix shares decline after reporting disappointing subscriber growth

#172

Post by dragonwriter »

lozenge wrote: post #157
TeMPOraL wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nowadays every media company wants their own streaming service. I wonder how this will evolve. Short-term, it looks like self-destructing greed to me. People are not going to subscribe to shit ton of services because each of them has a small slice of movies they might want to watch.

People are spending just as much time watching TV as they ever did. If they've always paid $70/month for it, why would the entertainment companies settle for people paying less now?

> If they've always paid $70/month for it, why would the entertainment companies settle for people paying less now?

The usual reason in a normal product market would be efficiencies developed over time reducing costs and competition driving prices down to marginally over cost.

Re: Netflix shares decline after reporting disappointing subscriber growth

#173

Post by bunderbunder »

derefr wrote: post #103
bunderbunder wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recs were very good back when it was the DVD service. Wild conjecture: A paucity of things to recommend, combined with a desire to not concede that there are only like 3 things left I haven't watched yet but would be likely to give 5 stars, prompted them to first tweak the recommender's calibration, then eventually to wholesale switch to a metric that blurs the distinction between, "Yeah, I'll watch it", and "Tha…

My guess is that they’re using variable-scheduled rewards: they’ll recommend you a bunch of shows they know you’d only give 3-4 stars, and “hold back” a 5 star show, surfacing it at some random set time since the last time they gave you something good. Such a strategy would get you more addicted, but also allow them to stretch their supply of subjectively-five-star-rated shows at the same time. It’s win-win ...for th…

In my case, I think it's even more stark: I've definitely wasted the odd hour hunting for something to watch, and, in the process, have become keenly aware of just how minuscule their library is right now.

They're building it back up with their private content, but, quite understandably, only in some very focused areas - presumably, the stuff that they expect to have the widest appeal. They originally built their business on basically owning the long tail, but now they've been forced to forsake it.

I think that's where a lot of the discontent is coming from. Folks are realizing that Netflix has turned into something very akin to the Blockbuster outlets that everyone had once cheered them for running out of town.

Re: Netflix shares decline after reporting disappointing subscriber growth

#174

Post by Bigglesbee »

Spooky23 wrote: post #62
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another anecdote: I’d have cancelled Netflix a while ago if my family wasn’t using it. Their UX has been on a steady decline for me: - Audio previews make it so I never want to browse for what to watch next. I hate having to fumble with my tv/home theatre remote because of this. - If you leave it hanging, the previews count towards a watch! Wow. God help you if you wanna make some popcorn. - Their sorts are always sh…

I share your observations, but wanted to add the their browsing system is just bonkers. Discovery is impossible — imo they overoptimize for engagement and make it hard to explore the catalog. I find out about many new shows via PR placements in newspapers.

Discovery is pretty much impossible for anything with a lot of products, I think mainly because there's no way to account for someone's personal taste, a pretty intangible concept.

Trying to find actual hidden gems on Steam or iOS is a nightmare, to the point where I waste the time I set aside to play games because I'm looking for one instead. Same with Amazon, the best it can do is "people who bought this product also bought this other sort of related product."

I also agree that UI like Netflix currently has -- big giant vaguely descriptive rectangles that only fit a handful on screen at once -- make discovery super discouraging, since it becomes tedious to scroll through everything and find more info about it.

Re: Netflix shares decline after reporting disappointing subscriber growth

#175

Post by scurvy »

throwawaymath wrote: post #23
scurvy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sucks if you bought in this morning hoping for a big earnings surprise. (I didn't, but I know those that did)

Opening a position on the day of the earnings announcement is generally a bad idea regardless of whether you’re right or wrong about the direction. Volatility is effectively priced in at that point.

You're confusing stock with options.

Re: Netflix shares decline after reporting disappointing subscriber growth

#176

Post by scurvy »

robomc wrote: post #20
scurvy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sucks if you bought in this morning hoping for a big earnings surprise. (I didn't, but I know those that did)

"Sucks if you bet on black" - buying shares hoping for an earnings surprise to pocket some free gains is the middle class version of having a good feeling about a horse.

Well, they're not free gains. It's also not any different than buying on any other day from an investing standpoint. Risk is still the amount of margin requirement (excluding derivative hedges).

Re: Netflix shares decline after reporting disappointing subscriber growth

#177

Post by rinze »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #144
whymauri wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% on the bilingual thing. For my family and I, it's kinda awkward - weird localization failure for such a large corp. Not to mention completely botched translations like the title of Money Heist (actually called The Paper House), which is the dumbest name I've ever seen.

Translations of movie titles are a pet peeve of mine. They are bad everywhere , and have been since way before the times of Internet streaming. My favourite example is Die Hard, which was translated to Polish as "Szklana Pułapka" (a glass trap). Presumably because the action took place in a skyscraper. I just wish I could have seen the faces of TV execs when they learned that Die Hard 2 came out, and was about airpla…

> My favourite example is Die Hard, which was translated to Polish as "Szklana Pułapka" (a glass trap). Presumably because the action took place in a skyscraper. I just wish I could have seen the faces of TV execs when they learned that Die Hard 2 came out, and was about airplane hijacking.

Same. In Spanish that title was translated as "La Jungla de Cristal" (The Glass Jungle). There seems to be some common agreement here :D

Re: Netflix shares decline after reporting disappointing subscriber growth

#178

Post by shakestheclown »

stingraycharles wrote: post #125
axaxs wrote: post #11

Netflix is in a weird position. Early on I loved it, but over time it seems down to a few good originals and a lot of bad ones, and third rate third party content. I haven't cancelled yet but probably will, as I rarely use it. I don't blame Netflix for this necessarily, but it has made it's consumer value much weaker. Internationally, there are much cheaper options typically. As an aside, their taking of a political…

Yes, I’ve also noticed that generally their original content isn’t very great. I can see how this happens when you optimize for binge-watching, but it feels like they just throw a lot of stuff against the wall and see what sticks. I’ve recently got an HBO subscription and the difference in quality is staggering.

I don't like how they mark exclusive right properties as "Originals" when they may not have made them. A lot of the quality of those exclusives is not great compared to their actual originals.

Re: Netflix shares decline after reporting disappointing subscriber growth

#179

Post by 1123581321 »

majewsky wrote: post #161
lozenge wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are spending just as much time watching TV as they ever did. If they've always paid $70/month for it, why would the entertainment companies settle for people paying less now?

People are paying $70/month for TV in the US!? In Germany, the basic HD TV package costs €60/year (not per month) if you want it. And also you have to pay €18/month for the public broadcasts (that part is non-negotiable). So that comes out to €23/month if you're watching over satellite. Cable TV sometimes imposes additional fees (€8/month in my apartment building). There is also Sky, a pay-TV provider, but I don't kn…

Sky has five million subscribers in Germany. That looks like about 12% of your households.

Basic TV in the US is free. Basic cable is about $30/mo. Case bundled with Internet is $50-100. There are some premium equivalents to Sky that top out around $200/mo. About 75% of US households pay for TV in some way. I’d say our mean and median household spending on TV is higher but there is a greater range of pricing, with $0 being quite viable if your tastes are simple.

Re: Netflix shares decline after reporting disappointing subscriber growth

#180

Post by 1123581321 »

dunpeal wrote: post #106

An interesting question for me is whether Netflix will also experience a wave of talent departures as an additional result of this stock plunge. Netflix is competing for talent as a FAANG outfit, and as such much of the value they provide to their employees depends on their RSUs. This works great as long as stock price is on a steep rise, as has generally been the case for FAANG over the past several years. Now that…

Factor into your calculation that the stock is now cheaper for new hires, and that Netflix can adjust compensation to retain employees. I personally don’t think it’s an interesting question yet.
Post reply on HN