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

Update on Sharing

about.netflix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 325 posts

Re: Update on Sharing

#171

Post by librish »

I feel like the moral outrage over this is a little overblown. Reading the terms it seems clear that Netflix is targeting people who are blatantly account sharing. It makes sense to worry that this will inconvenience people who have non-typical lifestyles though.

Similarly, saying this is a bad business move seems without any evidence seems rash. I don't think anyone at Netflix particularly _wants_ to implement this so my guess is that they have some pretty compelling evidence for why this makes sense.

Anecdotally, most people I know are sharing the majority of streaming accounts with multiple people.

Re: Update on Sharing

#172

Post by lxgr »

remus wrote: post #166
crazygringo wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It was specifically due to not meeting expected subscriber numbers, prompting a widespread negative reevaluation of Netflix's entire business model. The decrease was way beyond anything affecting the stock market or tech stocks generally. A simple glance at the numbers, and the dramatic plummets directly after earnings reports, makes that clear.

> It was specifically due to not meeting expected subscriber numbers, prompting a widespread negative reevaluation of Netflix's entire business model. I'd speculate that those expected subscriber numbers may have been inflated by the covid pandemic.

“Under the assumption that the growth of 1 billion subscribers per month will continue linearly, we expect that in just two years…”

Re: Update on Sharing

#173

Post by m00x »

crazygringo wrote: post #110
beerpls wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re not struggling to keep the lights on. They’re making a calculated bet they can extract more profit this way.

Their stock went from $690 in Oct 2021 to $175 in June 2022. That's a 75% plummet, which is definitely approaching the equivalent of struggling-to-keep-the-lights-on for a modern corporation. That's three quarters of the way to bankruptcy, big red flashing danger lights. So of course this is a calculated bet to improve profitability. Virtually everything a for-profit corporation does is to improve profitability -- th…

?? They're profitable and they made 4.5B in net income in 2022. 2023Q1 they made 1.3B net income.

Your analysis makes no sense. Please learn more about finances before commenting on financial matters.

Re: Update on Sharing

#174

Post by tristor »

I pay for the maximum subscription for Netflix, and we are heavy Netflix users. We also share the account with my elderly parents who occasionally watch something because we tell them to do so. If the fact that this is the case causes Netflix to take action with my account, I'm happy to take my $21.74 ($19.99+tax)/mo and tell them to shove it.

Re: Update on Sharing

#175

Post by ncallaway »

Paul-Craft wrote: post #121
CraigJPerry wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corey Doctrow has a good term for this, or at least it’s him i heard say it: enshitification. I think it just captures the dynamics beautifully, it’s almost poetic.

Ah, yes. Cory Doctrow. One of those people everybody hoped was full of shit and/or irrelevant 20 years ago, who, sadly, turned out not only to be right, but completely relevant ( c.f. https://StallmanWasRight.reddit.com ) That's a great word, but wouldn't just plain "shittification" be better?

I think it's better as "enshitification". Where "shitification" would probably be a noun (like "relocation"), "enshitification" then becomes a verb to carry out that process (like "endanger" to "danger").

Re: Update on Sharing

#176

Post by koyote »

nocoiner wrote: post #21

I really dislike how every corporate communication regarding an “update” now means “here’s how we’re making things worse for you.” I know honesty has never really been the fundamental value of public relations initiatives, but it would be refreshing to occasionally see a company saying that they’re putting the squeeze on customers because they need to protect their margins or even just because they can. The formerly-…

I received an e-mail update several weeks ago from a company that actually improved and made things cheaper in every way.

I had to read it 5 times to be sure that there was absolutely nothing being cut/made worse because they used the same corporate speak as one usually does for bad news (i.e. there was no "GOOD NEWS YOU NOW PAY $10 LESS", you had to dig through the details...).

Re: Update on Sharing

#178

Post by fnordpiglet »

crazygringo wrote: post #110
beerpls wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re not struggling to keep the lights on. They’re making a calculated bet they can extract more profit this way.

Their stock went from $690 in Oct 2021 to $175 in June 2022. That's a 75% plummet, which is definitely approaching the equivalent of struggling-to-keep-the-lights-on for a modern corporation. That's three quarters of the way to bankruptcy, big red flashing danger lights. So of course this is a calculated bet to improve profitability. Virtually everything a for-profit corporation does is to improve profitability -- th…

Companies share price matters to shareholders and implies an ability to raise additional capital. It doesn’t have anything to do with solvency unless they borrowed money to buy back shares (which some companies did do when interest rates were low and share prices were depressed). Employees on stock incentive plans probably are eating the burden more than anyone.

Re: Update on Sharing

#179

Post by ryanseys »

nocoiner wrote: post #21

I really dislike how every corporate communication regarding an “update” now means “here’s how we’re making things worse for you.” I know honesty has never really been the fundamental value of public relations initiatives, but it would be refreshing to occasionally see a company saying that they’re putting the squeeze on customers because they need to protect their margins or even just because they can. The formerly-…

There was an internal joke / meme at Google that any announcement starting with "An update on X" == we are killing X, to the point that if someone was sending their resignation email the subject line of the email would be "An update on "

- https://blog.chromium.org/2023/05/an-update-on-lock-icon.htm...

- https://blogger.googleblog.com/2019/01/an-update-on-google-a...

- https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2015/06/an-update-...

The rest: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22an+update+on%22+site%3Ago...

Re: Update on Sharing

#180

Post by batiudrami »

librish wrote: post #171

I feel like the moral outrage over this is a little overblown. Reading the terms it seems clear that Netflix is targeting people who are blatantly account sharing. It makes sense to worry that this will inconvenience people who have non-typical lifestyles though. Similarly, saying this is a bad business move seems without any evidence seems rash. I don't think anyone at Netflix particularly _wants_ to implement this…

I think companies can charge what they want for content and people are able to not use the service if they don’t like the price. So I think the moral outrage is ridiculous.

But, like you suggested, my house has access to 6 steaming services, all shared with other people, which leaves our monthly outlay at about $25. That’s a reasonable price to pay for me, and if I stop being able to share I will start to make some choices about my subscriptions. I wonder how this ends for Netflix, cashflow wise. They definitely aren’t worth the $20/m they’re asking, especially because by comparison that’s what I pay for the rest combined. In terms of content I actually want to watch they’re probably only about 4th best.

Post reply on HN