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

241–250 of 325 posts

Re: Update on Sharing

#241

Post by AyH3PY4SdGPzZ8w »

crazygringo wrote: post #138
syrrim wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they were supremely overvalued as of oct '21, as were many other stocks and securities, and the decline represents a return to sanity.

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.

> The decrease was way beyond anything affecting the stock market or tech stocks generally

Counterpoint: Gamestop.

Counterpoint: Bitcoin.

Counterpoint: AMC.

Counterpoint: literally any of its other fellow meme stonks

Re: Update on Sharing

#242

Post by smugma »

Narkov wrote: post #212
crazygringo wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“‘How did you go bankrupt?’ Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”

— Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises

Re: Update on Sharing

#243

Post by AyH3PY4SdGPzZ8w »

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…

- Narrower content selection

- Higher prices

- Fewer features (rip DVDs)

- Even higher prices once you consider also subscribing to competitors

- Pay us for what used to be free!

Re: Update on Sharing

#244

Post by cfiggers »

hahajk wrote: post #167
joshe wrote: post #161

One tip I use is to not waste money is never be subscribed to any streaming platform. So sign up for 1 month, cancel immediately and then watch what you wish for the month. Netflix used to be a pretty good deal because they had a depth of great old content from the major studios. But now it's scattered all over the other services, and we've all seen most of their decent original content. Doing it this way I'm subscri…

I think this strategy will only work a little longer. The crackdown on sharing is only start. As the pressure increases on streaming services to turn more profits I'd expect longer contract lengths. I wouldn't be surprised to see Adobe-style "reduced price monthly payment" contracts from the more corporate services.

It's literally cable all over again. How did we let this happen?

Re: Update on Sharing

#245

Post by seedless-sensat »

ryanseys wrote: post #179
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/2015/0…

To me, the worst Google corpspeak/best meme was "Advancing our amazing bet" https://fiber.google.com/blog/2016/10/advancing-our-amazing-...

Re: Update on Sharing

#246

Post by BonoboIO »

notatoad wrote: post #189

i see the thread is full of people predicting that this is going to be a bad decision for netflix, because they personally cancelled their accounts or are going to. and i cancelled my netflix account too - recent changes to pricing and policies made me re-assess whether it was worth it for me, and i decided it wasnt'. but it's always good to remember that our own actions aren't necessarily the same as everybody else'…

Netflix got a lot of competition lately. I can not even name all the streaming platforms: HBO, peacock, paramount, Hulu, Disney, Apple ...

Netflix sees themselves as a tech company with flashy servers toys, but they are in the media business. If their content is subpar, the best engineering will not fix it.

They have 80% saturation in US households, no real path to growth here.

Investors like to see more revenue ... so they try this. I think a paying costumer with shared passwords is better than, no customer at all.

Why pay more, when I can share my passwords on [insert other streaming platform] with my buddies.

Re: Update on Sharing

#247

Post by kelnos »

crazygringo wrote: post #138
syrrim wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they were supremely overvalued as of oct '21, as were many other stocks and securities, and the decline represents a return to sanity.

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

Sure, but "not meeting expected subscriber numbers" doesn't mean "the company is soon going to be unable to keep the lights on" or even "the company has an unsustainable business model and will fail". It just means market analysts believed Netflix would grow at a particular rate, but they grew at a lower rate. Wall Street is pretty fickle about growth numbers.

Also note that the stock price has partially recovered, to $355. A year of fairly steady stock price increase doesn't suggest to me that there's anything particularly wrong with the company.

Up higher, you said that a 75% price drop is "three quarters of the way to bankruptcy", which is... just not how the stock market works. The stock price is just a reflection of how the public market values ownership in the company. Hell, the stock price of a company going through bankruptcy proceedings might not even drop all the way to zero, depending on the details of the bankruptcy (e.g., if the company's assets exceed liabilities, there'd still be money left over for shareholders even in a liquidation). And regardless, bankruptcy doesn't even mean the company is going to be shut down; plenty of companies come out of chapter 11 and remain going concerns.

Re: Update on Sharing

#248

Post by ocdtrekkie »

cfiggers wrote: post #244
hahajk wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this strategy will only work a little longer. The crackdown on sharing is only start. As the pressure increases on streaming services to turn more profits I'd expect longer contract lengths. I wouldn't be surprised to see Adobe-style "reduced price monthly payment" contracts from the more corporate services.

It's literally cable all over again. How did we let this happen?

Because people were dumb enough to believe that television companies were going to provide an endless library for $10 a month?

Like for years I'd point this out and people were absolutely unwilling to recognize that giving away all their content near free was not a thing that would be around long term.

Re: Update on Sharing

#249

Post by ocdtrekkie »

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…

Yeah good luck to them discerning the very fuzzy boundary of people who live with you, while also allowing all of them to watch when they are not at that house.

People who regularly live between two households will be a common source of customer service tickets.

Re: Update on Sharing

#250

Post by pb7 »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #219
zamadatix wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 =/

Do you have weird post-processing/sharpening on your TV (other than "soap opera mode")? There's really no reason to watch 1080p instead of 4K. Your eyes aren't somehow low resolution with 1080p closer to that realism.
Post reply on HN