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

Netflix loses 800,000 subscribers (stock drops 28%)

money.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 190 posts

Re: Netflix loses 800,000 subscribers (stock drops 28%)

#91

Post by chadgeidel »

theoj wrote: post #29
paul9290 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The B-grade content they started to put front and center lost me. I just use hulu.com and other similar sites; Mac Mini connected to my TV.

Agree, it does feel like there is a lot of B-grade stuff on Netflix streaming. Paradoxically, the unlimited movie buffet might be their undoing. There is a limited number of movies that are truly excellent and worth watching. Once you go through those good ones, you're left with the crap. Having unlimited watching quickly moves you from the good stuff to the crap, and then you cancel your subscription. Neflix faces a…

I personally am amazed that people's queue is not constantly full. Right now I have 178 disks in my "DVD" queue and 87 titles in my "Instant" queue (including series which take one slot).

Maybe there's a ton of stuff that I don't "need" to watch, but I can always find something interesting. I really don't consider myself a huge movie lover either.

Re: Netflix loses 800,000 subscribers (stock drops 28%)

#93

Post by amandalim89 »

This shows that when consumers band together they can make a difference in corporate America. I wish we were more united in standing up against other products that are, 1.environmentally unfriendly (petrol) 2.abusive (child labor in Nike Sweatshops) 3.cruelty to animals (chicken farms) Sadly, I think most consumers only united when it's hurting their pockets. Otherwise, they turn a blind eye.

Re: Netflix loses 800,000 subscribers (stock drops 28%)

#94

Post by nfriedly »

chadgeidel wrote: post #83
goodweeds wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's gotten better, but I used to call up my bank and ask for a new debit card once or twice per year rather than having to deal with the hell of canceling various services. It was fun to that the same companies who made cancel-ling impossible would call me up to tell me that billing had failed.

Do they ever send you to collections? I hear that's an even worse nightmare.

Bill collectors really aren't that bad if you know how to deal with them. I got sent to one once for a service I had canceled three times. The collector sent me a letter in the mail and then started calling every day at around 8 or 9 am.

I sent all of the calls to voicemail and I sent a letter to the collector (via certified mail with delivery receipt) that said "RE: account number XYZ; this bill is erroneous, do not contact me again." I haven't heard from them since.

Re: Netflix loses 800,000 subscribers (stock drops 28%)

#95

Post by krelian »

wiredfool wrote: post #79
tomkarlo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

P/E is only one metric and it's potentially very deceptive. You're using a PE that's uncorrected for expenses that are essentially investment in future business growth rather than a fundamental part of the business model. Amazon, for example, is hiring tons of new employees to build out its AWS business; that's a positive sign (it shows they believe that's a good investment) but in the short term it will drive down t…

Right, but Amazon is in a heavy infrastructure, heavy competition, low margin business. And their margins are small and getting smaller. 2% or so IIRC. They're less poised for explosive growth than Apple. On the other hand, they're here for the long haul. Apple is spending a lot on infrastructure, but they're in a lower competition, high margin business. 38% margin IIRC. (yes, there's competition. But Amazon's compet…

>For Comparison's sake, last quarter, Apple earned 6.8 billion. Amazon's net sales were 9.9 billion. Pretty soon, I'd expect Apple's profits to be bigger than Amazon's sales. Something's not rational here. Might be me. Might be the market.

Those two companies are quite the opposite from each other. One tries to lower prices as much as possible the other tries to charge as much as possible.

Re: Netflix loses 800,000 subscribers (stock drops 28%)

#96

Post by goodweeds »

chadgeidel wrote: post #83
goodweeds wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's gotten better, but I used to call up my bank and ask for a new debit card once or twice per year rather than having to deal with the hell of canceling various services. It was fun to that the same companies who made cancel-ling impossible would call me up to tell me that billing had failed.

Do they ever send you to collections? I hear that's an even worse nightmare.

Never. The kind of companies who are automatically billing are attempting to charge in advance for monthly services without a long-term contract, as opposed to billing in arears, so as far as I know I don't owe them the money and they can cancel my account clearly.

Re: Netflix loses 800,000 subscribers (stock drops 28%)

#97

Post by padobson »

cookiecaper is on to something when he says that Netflix needs to offer a white label service - but it goes deeper than that, and there is one very stupid road block to seeing it happen.

In order to obfuscate the entire business model and tie up legal battles, content providers consider streams to an iPhone, an Android device, a PC, a Mac, a PS3, a blu-ray player, and an internet TV to be completely different services - and the content providers want different rates and pricing to each device.

A stream is a stream is a stream is a stream! (...imho)

This is the major reason that Netflix hasn't yet been able provide an open streaming API and the real reason TV hasn't seen the explosive changes that music and mobile phones have seen over the past 15 years.

Almost all video services feel ancient when you're watching them - the user experience is marginally better or improved over what our grandparents were watching 50 years ago.

Where is the bottom line streaming my Twitter lists relative to the genre I'm watching? Where is the onscreen chat with my wife when we're in different cities when our favorite show is on? Where are the annotations on movies from friends, celebrities, and critics? What did my favorite sports writer think of the last play?

Why is the biggest screen in the house so dull? Why can't I buy once and play anywhere?

TV can and should be so much more, but content providers would want $2/user for every incarnation of each feature I described above - because to them, a stream isn't just a stream isn't just a stream isn't just a stream.

Re: Netflix loses 800,000 subscribers (stock drops 28%)

#98

Post by f7u12 »

I vowed never to use Netflix again when I realized they cancel your subscription instantly instead of giving you the month you pay for (a la WoW or any other properly run service). I also take every opportunity to bad mouth them for this awful business practice. Yeah, it's in the terms, but it's shit.

Re: Netflix loses 800,000 subscribers (stock drops 28%)

#99

Post by cpeterso »

powertower wrote: post #82
steve8918 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I jumped in at $86 after hours, with only 100 shares. They just simply got decimated after hours, but it felt pretty overdone, especially with only losing 800k customers. Seems worth it to take a stab. That being said, the business model is doomed. They don't control the content, so they are essentially a technology company. Their technology is great, I had them for a few months, but unless they own the content they…

When a drop in stock price is disproportionate to the available news, then you can be sure that the real cause of that drop is due to major players and insiders getting out because they know more than the public does and more problems are about to come out.

Catching a falling knife can be dangerous (literally or metaphorically).

Re: Netflix loses 800,000 subscribers (stock drops 28%)

#100

Post by cookiecaper »

jamesfrank wrote: post #71
cookiecaper wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best potential outcome of this would be accelerating potential copyright/IP reform. Netflix is destined to die unless they can find a way to diversify; as you said, the rights holders want to cut out the middle man. The overhead requisite in old-world rental chains like Blockbuster is sufficiently prohibitive that the media companies did not have an interest in supplanting that market, but now that Netflix has pr…

How would this accelerate copyright/IP reform?

It's a great example of the excessive control given to rights holders, so excessive that a prominent company like Netflix ($300/share is certainly not something to shirk) and similar hypothetical businesses can be totally gutted at the pleasure of a handful of production companies and/or publishers. The diminution of Netflix is no small matter and will hopefully serve as a very visible demonstration of the cruel absurdity of current copyright law.

Netflix can only offer a relative few movies without the approval of content holders, mostly only those that are older than my grandparents. They don't even have the option of reverting to classics from the 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s.

The hope is that the dramatic demise of Netflix will raise awareness and visibility of these issues, promoting IP reform.

Post reply on HN