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

211–220 of 325 posts

Re: Update on Sharing

#211

Post by librish »

paxys wrote: post #193
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 don't think there's any possible check for "blatantly account sharing". Whether there is a single account being passed around among a dozen friends, a parent sharing an account with their kid in college, a husband and wife using an account on their different business trips or whatever else, it's all the same to Netflix.

The third one is different, and is allowed by Netflix.

Re: Update on Sharing

#212

Post by Narkov »

crazygringo wrote: post #184
m00x wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

?? 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.

Please don't be insulting by telling other people what to learn. And if you look at the quarter before -- 2022Q4 -- they made just $55 million net income, which on revenue of 7.85B is below 1% profit. The overall point is that Netflix is in an extremely volatile and risky industry where it's not in a position to leisurely "extract" more profit because it's a bad guy or something, but rather it's very much been forced…

It's hard to go broke making a profit.

Re: Update on Sharing

#213

Post by bombcar »

KomoD wrote: post #165
tinglymintyfrsh wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you have 5 homes (with 5 different ISPs)? Is each a household or are the collection of people households? What if you have friends who are basically family who more-or-less live with you? Are they not part of the "household"? "Sorry, Bob, while you maybe my daughter's godfather and donated a kidney to me, you're now going to need your own Netflix account because Netflix wants to mash the 'pump corporate profi…

Who has 5 homes?

Most people would consider someone with five homes as very rich, but you could get relatively close with only moderately excessive wealth and a divorce. Each parent owning a vacation home, perhaps.

Re: Update on Sharing

#214

Post by charcircuit »

crazygringo wrote: post #206
fnordpiglet wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 managemen…

A share price being $0 is not what was being talked about. A 75% decreases of share price is the topic.

Re: Update on Sharing

#215

Post by fnordpiglet »

crazygringo wrote: post #206
fnordpiglet wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 managemen…

See the parallel comment about Lehman. Share price was fine. Company wasn’t. Only once it was public the company was effectively dead did the shares fall. They are unrelated.

But it’s also not splitting hairs. It’s important to realize that equity price has no bearing on the company itself. You’re talking about something different than what was being discussed. You’re saying share price is correlated to expectation of company performance. What was being discussed was company performance is related to share price. One direction is true but the other isn’t. Companies see their valuations fall for all sorts of reasons that are not reflected in actual performance. Thats often because of a hype cycle that deflates, or maybe a scandal involving an executive, or whatever. This fall in valuation doesn’t impair the company in the least, except for if they need to raise capital by issuing equity.

May companies get delisted, which effectively brings their share price to the penny stock levels. They sometimes resurface and relist. Companies also can do certain corporate actions that make their stock basically worthless. The key is that while a stocks price sometimes corresponds to actual performance, actual performance is never impacted by stock price.

Re: Update on Sharing

#216

Post by atleastoptimal »

koyote wrote: post #176
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...).

This is basically how things go

>Company starts

>Makes things better to get a larger market share

>Gets a mini-monopoly (large enough share that inertia and name recognition can preserve its market share)

>Slowly but deliberately gets worse to increase profit margins

Re: Update on Sharing

#217

Post by [deleted] »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #216
koyote wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...).

This is basically how things go >Company starts >Makes things better to get a larger market share >Gets a mini-monopoly (large enough share that inertia and name recognition can preserve its market share) >Slowly but deliberately gets worse to increase profit margins

[deleted]

Re: Update on Sharing

#218

Post by dghlsakjg »

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…

Ok. Now do Oct 2019 and now. $270 to $330

See how picking arbitrary dates different from yours makes it look like a completely different story?

Re: Update on Sharing

#219

Post by throwaway09223 »

zamadatix wrote: post #104
bee_rider wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should have shared passwords, at least you could trade a Netflix for a Hulu or whatever. Apple TV is $6.99 a month. Netflix looks to be $9.99 (ignoring the ad-subsidized offering which isn’t really comparable). It is kind of hard to share an Apple TV login (at least I wasn’t able to figure out how to share it without also sharing my whole Apple account), so I guess that extra $3 must be the price of all the sharing g…

It gets a bit more complicated than that, e.g. Apple TV+ doesn't have tiers and the $9.99 Netflix plan won't get you 4k. That said, it's also more complicated than assuming the cost difference is all due to password sharing. Who has the better media agreements? Is a particular player trying to buy market share or focusing on maximizing margin of the share they have? How does having an integrated hardware ecosystem vs…

"and the $9.99 Netflix plan won't get you 4k."

Maybe a bit off topic, but I'm wondering if anyone else actively avoids 4k? I hate watching content in ultra high resolution. It looks strange and unreal to me (Yes: I've turned off "soap opera mode")

I'm really glad netflix makes it easy to avoid higher resolution versions of their shows =/

Re: Update on Sharing

#220

Post by paxys »

librish wrote: post #211
paxys wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's any possible check for "blatantly account sharing". Whether there is a single account being passed around among a dozen friends, a parent sharing an account with their kid in college, a husband and wife using an account on their different business trips or whatever else, it's all the same to Netflix.

The third one is different, and is allowed by Netflix.

It is allowed only as far as their tooling can detect.
Post reply on HN