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

201–210 of 325 posts

Re: Update on Sharing

#201

Post by fluidcruft »

gumby wrote: post #63

I don't understand their logic. First: you can subscribe to n simultaneous streams/downloads. Ours is 2, and sometimes the kids complain, and end up sorting it out somehow.* Second: if you have a kid at college, they "live at home" for various other mechanisms (count as a dependent for taxation; qualify for parents' health insurance, can vote in their home district regardless of where they live; can be part of a fami…

Same. Two (maybe even three, I can't remember) streams and used to experience lots of arguing about who is watching what and who can't access, but I haven't heard those fights in quite some time. Particularly annoying when one of the kids would leave a device playing and autoplay just rattles on for a few hours. I'm actually pondering right now whether there's a trivial "wife approval factor" friendly dashboard to theow together to monitor and record router flow to display simple monthly household consumption patterns. Heck go a step further plug in monthly fees into the dashboard and see which services are a waste of spacetime. It could become one of those lmlicense manager BOFH.

It's particularly annoying because I personally find myself watching PlutoTV most lately (so much easier to just turn on something themed channels like Star Trek/MSTK3K/Stargate or Action/Comedy Movies and just watch what's streaming rather than browse around). And it's even more annoying to see that PlutoTV is playing many of the same movies you're paying for on other services.

Re: Update on Sharing

#202

Post by Frost1x »

CraigJPerry wrote: post #54
Paul-Craft wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... " To better serve our customers, here's how we're making things worse for you. FTFY.

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.

I didn't know there was a semi-common term coined for this process that seems pervasive. I'm fully adopting it.

Re: Update on Sharing

#203

Post by fnordpiglet »

crazygringo wrote: post #191
fnordpiglet wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It doesn’t have anything to do with solvency Of course it does. If a stock goes to $0, the company is essentially insolvent. Sure there are details of timing -- insolvency isn't exactly the same as bankruptcy isn't exactly the same as a stock price of $0 -- but in practice they all tend to go together and the company as a going concern owned by present investors is effed.

I’m sorry, you’re just wrong. While share price generally correlated to the market investors view of future value there’s no direct relationship between equity valuation and corporate performance in any way whatsoever, other than the ability to raise additional capital. Once the equity has been sold in the primary issuance it’s only relationship to the corporation is an ownership claim and a weak claim on assets.

Re: Update on Sharing

#204

Post by fnordpiglet »

dudeinjapan wrote: post #199
fnordpiglet wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I worked for Lehman Brothers. When our shareprice went to pennies, it had a lot do with solvency at that point.

The share price reflected the company’s state, but the share price didn’t induce the companies state. Debt and obligations were what brought down Lehman, not the stock price. (Well, not directly - if the stock had been worth a lot they could have raised capital… but just like their credit spreads blowing out, their stock price drop made capital raising impossible)

Re: Update on Sharing

#205

Post by jacooper »

rektide wrote: post #39

Anyone have a writeup on using TailScale to bypass these sorts of limits? Some folks have said it includes SSID as a check which is definitely a wrinkle. I would have assumed it was mostly just using IP address. This is one of those cases where the War Against General Purpose Computing is going to own society, score points against users. I assume if you can root & run Magisk you could fake a geolocation for example.…

This LTT video is just for you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CunwUs08og

Re: Update on Sharing

#206

Post by crazygringo »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #203
crazygringo wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn’t have anything to do with solvency Of course it does. If a stock goes to $0, the company is essentially insolvent. Sure there are details of timing -- insolvency isn't exactly the same as bankruptcy isn't exactly the same as a stock price of $0 -- but in practice they all tend to go together and the company as a going concern owned by present investors is effed.

I’m sorry, you’re just wrong. While share price generally correlated to the market investors view of future value there’s no direct relationship between equity valuation and corporate performance in any way whatsoever, other than the ability to raise additional capital. Once the equity has been sold in the primary issuance it’s only relationship to the corporation is an ownership claim and a weak claim on assets.

I literally said they're not exactly the same. But in practice, if the share price is $0, it's because the company is generally unable to pay its bills for long and bankruptcy is imminent. If the market thinks a company has zero value, the company is unlikely to survive for long, unless some miracle proves the market wrong.

Splitting hairs over these technicalities is important for lawyers and analysts and management and in bankruptcy court, but not terribly important in the larger view. In the larger view, market cap via share price is a very practical reflection of the overall health/viability of a publicly traded company.

Re: Update on Sharing

#207

Post by nomel »

nomel wrote: post #76
xbmcuser wrote: post #60

I still have a Netflix account as my family in another country use it. If get this letter I will probably close the account

These types of comments completely justify Netflix’s actions, in my mind.

It appears that some think that sharing a password with someone in another country is an expected/justified use case, which is an objectively ridiculous interpretation of the terms of service.

A similarly ridiculous interpretation, of sharing it with the whole office: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35719281

I suspect Netflix will come out ahead with this, with how casual it seems to be.

Re: Update on Sharing

#208

Post by [deleted] »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #204
dudeinjapan wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked for Lehman Brothers. When our shareprice went to pennies, it had a lot do with solvency at that point.

The share price reflected the company’s state, but the share price didn’t induce the companies state. Debt and obligations were what brought down Lehman, not the stock price. (Well, not directly - if the stock had been worth a lot they could have raised capital… but just like their credit spreads blowing out, their stock price drop made capital raising impossible)

[deleted]

Re: Update on Sharing

#209

Post by librish »

jackson1442 wrote: post #181
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…

Most of the backlash is because: - one of the things you pay for in your netflix tier is the number of "screens" - 4 screens = 4 simaltaneous streams. Many people think the screens are theirs to use how they see fit - netflix used to _encourage_ password sharing[0] - and of course, the number one rule of the internet: never charge for what you used to offer for free [0]: https://twitter.com/netflix/status/84027607304…

I've seen that tweet before and I think it's a bit ridiculous to take a cheeky line from a marketing person to represent a perpetual promise by the company.

Re: Update on Sharing

#210

Post by blep_ »

mdasen wrote: post #109
galleywest200 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I have my other households VPN to my local network to bypass this?

Possibly, but it seems like this this would be pretty easy to detect. First, they should already know who has been sharing accounts. You haven't been having other households VPN to your local network for the past 5 years for Netflix. That gives them a great starting point. They can look at SSIDs and not just your SSID, but all the SSIDs that your device is seeing. Even within a household, not all the SSIDs will be th…

This entire plan immediately falls over as soon as someone uses an ethernet cable.
Post reply on HN