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

251–260 of 325 posts

Re: Update on Sharing

#251

Post by buzer »

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?

5 homes is likely rare, but I don't think 2 is extremely uncommon. Like vacation home where family might spend summer or working at different city than where family and coming home for weekends. In Finland over 10% of people have a cabin and in average they spend 79 days of the year there (https://suomenkuvalehti.fi/kotimaa/yli-puoli-miljoonaa-kesam...) though I'm not sure how common it's to have electricity these days.

Re: Update on Sharing

#252

Post by slothtrop »

Weirdly Netflix is still the little guy, but they don't appear that way to people. All the other services are from tech giants and the big telecoms (and Disney). I figure this is a move pretty much all of them want to make, but they want to see who blinks first. Netflix can't afford to bleed as much cash. They've tried ramping up the number of productions, and are now attempting to put out fires this way.

Re: Update on Sharing

#253

Post by moneywoes »

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.…

Could you please eli5 how it works, a shared VPN?

Re: Update on Sharing

#254

Post by reaperman »

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.

Holy shit you weren't kidding about that image. I was expected a red house with red TVs in it with a white background in a pleasant "Google-y"/ 'kawaii corporate-memphis' style.

It is decidedly dark / menacing / imposing / threatening, not playful at all.

Re: Update on Sharing

#255

Post by bongobingo1 »

koyote wrote: post #231
atleastoptimal wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There must have been something they made more expensive somewhere to compensate

Milk and eggs? Probably they saw a dip in spending because people can't afford extras. Cheaper delivery can get people to add-spend "cause I'm already paying for delivery, should make it worth it".

Re: Update on Sharing

#256

Post by nepthar »

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.…

I'd be curious about how Netflix would get access to your SSID. On a mobile app, you'd have to grant that permission - do they now ask for that?

Re: Update on Sharing

#257

Post by MichaelZuo »

seedless-sensat wrote: post #245
ryanseys wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

The obtuseness of communication is inversely proportional to the strength of position of the communicator multiplied by the scope of the message.

Re: Update on Sharing

#258

Post by droobles »

Anyone else notice Netlfix also being laggy and shows crashing consistently in these past few months? I've pretty much stopped watching it in favor of HBO's streaming platform.

Re: Update on Sharing

#259

Post by m00x »

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…

I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm trying to help you and other readers. You're clearly ignorant of company finances, and commenting like you know what you're talking about is doing no one any favours.

You picked the one quarter they did poorly, before this they made a consistent 1B+ net profit. This is extremely good financials, and not volatile at all. They also have 50B in assets at the moment, including almost 8B in cash.

Re: Update on Sharing

#260

Post by xeromal »

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…

Isn't share price like a credit score? It's indicative of what you're doing but the score itself doesn't make you poor.
Post reply on HN