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

221–230 of 325 posts

Re: Update on Sharing

#221

Post by nly »

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.

Stock markets are secondary markets. When you buy or sell Meta stock no money flows in or out of Meta. If Meta don't want to raise more capital, which they don't, ... their stock price means nothing to them until the shareholders revolt and vote for change (except they can't in Meta's case, since Zuck has total control).

Re: Update on Sharing

#222

Post by dghlsakjg »

crazygringo wrote: post #188
mikeortman wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t about keeping Netflix in business, they are doing just fine. This is about squeezing out every last drop of exponential growth expected by shareholders.

Their stock plummeted 75% between Oct 2021 and June 2022. That's not "doing just fine" by any standard. So no, this isn't about squeezing out every last drop, this is about making necessary structural changes to remain viable in the long-term.

It was also up 300% between 2019 and 2021, and has bounced way back up since June 2022. This is just reversion to the mean

Re: Update on Sharing

#223

Post by xtracto »

someotherperson wrote: post #143

I installed an app on my Chromecast/Google TV a couple of days ago called Cloudstream. Some of the providers segment the different shows/movies by Netflix/HBO/Disney+/Paramount etc. Some of the providers give you 4K streams. Has subtitles, "watch later" lists and the ability to continue from where you left off. The interface is pretty nice too. It's really straight forward to add on any Android device -- phone, Fire…

I remember installing that CloudStream app and struggling a bit with plugins, repositores and whatnot, for a couple of hours... with regards to piracy up until now nothing has beaten simple BtDigg + WebTor for me until now.

Re: Update on Sharing

#224

Post by xxpor »

lxgr wrote: post #169
thfuran wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's three quarters of the way to bankruptcy, big red flashing danger lights. Is it though? Were they funding operations by selling shares?

If their employees are paid in stock, yes.

Netflix famously does all cash comp.

Re: Update on Sharing

#225

Post by xtracto »

Screw these type of policies... I was bitten by a similar policy by Spotify a couple of years ago when I was a paying customer with a Family Plan that only my wife and I used. Suddenly they decided to "cancel" my wife's account and I had to add her again... but when trying to add her, they asked me for her address and it had to match whatever address I added when I first joined (hint hint, We've moved houses several times in the last couple of years). And they refuse to show the address you have of you in their systems (Is that GDPR compliant for people in Europe?)

Suffice to say, I cancelled my account and moved my business to Google Play Music and Tidal (for HiFi/Masters) where I am a paying customer now.

These type of controls are idiotic and are only thought to squeeze as much revenue as possible from existing customers.

COMPANIES: STOP SCREWING YOUR EXISTING CUSTOMERS!!!

Re: Update on Sharing

#226

Post by dahwolf »

Rationally, this move makes sense, but Netflix is dealing with the legacy of peaking early.

It started with a low price and deep catalog. The very popularity of Netflix is almost entirely based on that steal of a deal. The cable breaker. People's expectations of Netflix are cemented in that era.

Now the price has roughly doubled whilst the catalog has degraded, and this is just one more nail in the coffin. Almost everybody seems disappointed in Netflix in one way or another.

Personally, I see the fragmentation of streaming services as a solution, not a problem. Jump from service to service with zero loyalty. Let them compete for your money instead of seeing it as a stale gym membership.

Re: Update on Sharing

#227

Post by crimsontech »

joemi wrote: post #68
zamadatix wrote: post #13

Honestly, I wouldn't have minded something like "buy an extra member" if it were introduced years ago. Introducing it now just seems to be a trigger to re-evaluate "is Netflix really worth that much" at a time their content selection doesn't look as amazing as it once did. I'm coming from a background of having recently cancelled my account though, and may be biased in thinking along those lines as a result. Overall…

> Overall it'll be interesting to see how much impact this actually has or doesn't have for subscription volume. My guess is maybe not as much as the usual uproared comments would have you think. I suspect you're right about this. This change has no effect on the people who aren't sharing their account, so those people have very little incentive to comment except perhaps out of sympathy for those who it will affect.…

I suspect most people won’t even realise. I do share mine with my gran who I set up with a smart tv and Internet during Covid because she was stuck in the house on her own, and my daughter who was away at university.

I feel like I’ve already watched anything worth watching and would have cancelled my subscription already if it wasn’t for my family still using it.

Re: Update on Sharing

#228

Post by nly »

BXlnt2EachOther wrote: post #119

edit to add: following is totally US-centric! Like the blog post I think? I was not familiar with how much Netflix costs these days, either the subscription or extra sharing slots. Pasted here in case it's helpful. Sorry if this is redundant, didn't find with ctrl-f. Standard with ads: $6.99 / month Basic: $9.99 / month Standard: $15.49 / month (extra member slots\* can be added for $7.99 each / month) Premium: $19.9…

Hey, for once the UK isn't getting screwed! (Premium is £15.99, which is $19.87)

Re: Update on Sharing

#229

Post by TeMPOraL »

crazygringo wrote: post #91
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 don't see anything to dislike here. It is an update, and this particular notice is avoiding any of the usual nonsense like "to better serve our customers" or "to improve your experience". It seems straightforward and to the point. And they're a for-profit corporation, of course they need to protect their profitability. That goes without saying. If they go out of business, then no Netflix programming for anybody, an…

I agree. The e-mail is unusually, refreshingly clear for typical corporate communication.

That said, the image at the top of the article is... menacing. I know it's sticking to Netflix branding, but the smiling, deeply red screens, made me feel like that house is about to murder everyone inside.

Re: Update on Sharing

#230

Post by m463 »

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-…

reminds me of dialogs that say:

   [not now] [ask me again later]
it sort of sets you on edge.

...

as to the title, maybe "on sharing" would be better.

I also remember Steve Jobs' memo on adobe flash. He titled it "Thoughts on Flash"¹

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughts_on_Flash

Post reply on HN