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

231–240 of 325 posts

Re: Update on Sharing

#231

Post by koyote »

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

Yeah that's how it usually works.

This, however, was a major supermarket chain that's been going for nearly 100 years. They decided to make delivery cheaper AND reduce minimum spend per delivery by half. There must have been something they made more expensive somewhere to compensate or maybe they were pushed to do this by the market, I am not sure.

Re: Update on Sharing

#232

Post by zwieback »

KoftaBob wrote: post #41
zwieback wrote: post #23

My daughters have been freeloading on our Netflix even though WE TOLD THEM NOT TO DO THAT. So now they'll get booted off without us having to be the bad parents texting them that we want to use it now. No complaints from me.

The idea of Netflix executives helping your parenting by letting you avoid the terrifying possibility of...saying no to your children...is hilarious to me.

Yeah, it was meant as a joke but I guess I was too subtle. I still get why NF is doing it though.

Re: Update on Sharing

#234

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

#235

Post by sirmarksalot »

km3r wrote: post #156
autoexec wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But as more people say that and don't bother watching until there's a whole finished story, then even more shows get canceled earlier because nobody watched the first season. That's still netflix's fault. They need to stop expecting the world to flock to their newest shows the moment they are released, there's too much competing for our attention, and instead invest in stories and creators they believe in, and make…

I don't get why they can't just film a finale for the cancelled shows. One last episode to wrap up the plot lines.

My guess is that startup costs represent the bulk of the cost of a show. Just filming one episode probably costs somewhere on the same order of magnitude as an entire season.

Re: Update on Sharing

#236

Post by kibwen »

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…

This sort of misunderstanding is what we should expect when we teach people that the stock market is equal to the economy, rather than teaching people that it's just a casino for the ultra-wealthy.

Re: Update on Sharing

#237

Post by xbmcuser »

nomel wrote: post #207
nomel wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't use the account anymore they do so I am mostly just paying for the top tier account. My canceling the account will be a net loss for netflix as the subscription price is 2 times cheaper over there and good for me as I have been too embarrassed to tell my family I no longer use netflix so want to cancel my account.

Re: Update on Sharing

#238

Post by KomoD »

bombcar wrote: post #213
KomoD wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Still sounds rich to me.

Re: Update on Sharing

#239

Post by sandkoan »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #229
crazygringo wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The imagery you just evoked reminds me of Bradbury's short story, "The Veldt." [0]

[0]: https://repositorio.ufsc.br/bitstream/handle/123456789/16372...

Re: Update on Sharing

#240

Post by AyH3PY4SdGPzZ8w »

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…

Not only is stock price not a cause of bankruptcy (as others have said)... but you're comparing meme stock, overcharged markets frenzy with everyone's wallet plump from the stimulus, with the beginning of a recession.

(Side note, recaptcha is getting genuinely awful. 3 different challenges, 1 of which had 3 steps, and 20 seconds to get past it?! Have they given up detecting bots and decided to just make them wait?!)

Post reply on HN