611–620 of 763 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might be the most entitled thing I've read all month. You might even be more entitled than the toilet paper hoarders.
Reducing quality is fine, but they should reduce the price in line with that. How is this not completely fair?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, for a while I thought “the doors aren’t automatic at the REI” might be the ultimate first world problem, but now I think “I have to suffer through my pandemic passtime shows in standard definition ? where are my LAWYERS?” might be in first place.
No. I don't have problem with netflix reducing it. I have problem with netflix not reducing price together. They're essentially painting themselves in glory AT THE PRICE OF THEIR CUSTOMERS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are dying, you can handle a slightly worse video quality.
That's not the point though. My gym was closed and everyone's membership was automatically paused, they don't get to keep charging people. I'm fine with not going to the gym and I'm fine with a lower Netflix quality. But you shouldn't charge me for a service that you're simply not providing anymore. Netflix should downgrade everyone's plan automatically or just charge them less.
vs
"Netflix should downgrade everyone's plan automatically or just charge them less"
The way it was said in the parent comment was ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except, people are PAYING for that upgrade.
Two or four euros per month. Call the army! I would start a class action suite. /s This stupid selfish attitude is not helping. Netflix will probably issue a statement that they will refund all those affected. And if you don't like it, downgrade! You probably have plenty of time if this is an issue for you.
It is not about being selfish here, think more about it.
Treating Europe as a one block seems like very low resolution decision. Netflix content delivery network is sufficiently large in Europe to take into account much smaller areas.
I've been having major internet issues lately (Seattle area), have had 4 techs come try to figure it out. Yesterday's tech finally correctly diagnosed the problem as happening before the connection reaches our home but was unsure of the cause. He called his supervisor to investigate, and they found that the capacity for our neighborhood's node was nearly at 100%, while ideally it should always be under 80%. Fortunate…
You're describing an issue specific to US ISPs. It doesn't apply to Europe. From what I read even before the pandemic the US ISPs offered rather crappy services. In Europe, particularly in Poland, I don't have and haven't heard about anyone having any issues with connectivity right now, even though the country is in lockdown, schools and universities are closed, restaurants work only in delivery/take-out mode, compan…
This is pure bullshit. If Netflix won't commit to it's part of the deal (FULL HD and 4K) then why should I commit to my part (13.99 monthly)? You cannot decide by yourself to lower the quality of your services and keep the price same. Sometimes I wish I had enough money and time to seek "legal retribution" from these type of situations. I would love for this case to make it to the European Court in Strasbourg. "The v…
My internet connection is fine tho. Still low latency, no jitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two or four euros per month. Call the army! I would start a class action suite. /s This stupid selfish attitude is not helping. Netflix will probably issue a statement that they will refund all those affected. And if you don't like it, downgrade! You probably have plenty of time if this is an issue for you.
What I am telling here is, if you are unable to meet the criteria that you are getting paid for, then you need to refund the difference. They are not doing that. It is not about being selfish here, think more about it.
One is of the mind that we should be empathetic and since it's not a lot of money, people shouldn't complain.
The other is of the mind that, Netflix can certainly take those actions but shouldn't pass those costs on to the consumer.
I'm in the second camp.
In Holland, all the big gym companies still charge their memberships even though the gyms are closed. Since they're legally required to refund the money, they hide that from the consumer and get ahead of it by offering to 'give' consumers their own money back on their membership card. Thus not losing any money.
I think that people in this thread don't have a problem with the measures being taken, but specifically with companies not eating the cost and trying to pass those on to the consumer. That's the shady part and it's not right IMO.
I also find it fascinating that people don't have an issue with paying for services that they didn't receive if they're on a subscription yet they wouldn't pay an invoice should their favorite club(s), restaurant(s), etc. start sending them those.
While I'm open to having my mind changed, all of these practices do strike me as kinda unethical. It appears to me as taking advantage of the user in order not to sacrifice revenue and I think that that's what most people here are objecting to.
edit: My perspective on companies whether the P&L of a company should be taken into account.
I don't believe so.
I think people should be given the option to make an informed decision. Actions like these feel like they're purposefully designing a choice architecture such that there's an asymmetric information flow that can be taken advantage of to serve one's own needs as a company. That's unethical IMO; not unlike a shady 20th century used car dealer.