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

271–280 of 325 posts

Re: Update on Sharing

#271

Post by pxc »

ncallaway wrote: post #175
Paul-Craft wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, yes. Cory Doctrow. One of those people everybody hoped was full of shit and/or irrelevant 20 years ago, who, sadly, turned out not only to be right, but completely relevant ( c.f. https://StallmanWasRight.reddit.com ) That's a great word, but wouldn't just plain "shittification" be better?

I think it's better as "enshitification". Where "shitification" would probably be a noun (like "relocation"), "enshitification" then becomes a verb to carry out that process (like "endanger" to "danger").

Nah, the verb form is definitely 'enshittify'. 'ification' always still indicates a noun.

Re: Update on Sharing

#273

Post by blitzar »

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?

Like all the disruptors and reimagineers in tech before, all they really offered was the same thing we already had (but with a few billion lining their pocket).

Re: Update on Sharing

#274

Post by chayesfss »

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…

[dead]

Re: Update on Sharing

#275

Post by runeb »

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.…

On iOS devices I’ve seen streaming services ask for location (Peacock or Paramount+, cannot remember which)

Re: Update on Sharing

#276

Post by saagarjha »

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 result for me on that search query is “An update on kids and data protection on YouTube”. I guess no more kids and data protection? :P

Re: Update on Sharing

#277

Post by gordian-not »

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.

wow! you're right

The image at the top of the mail is also a bit creepy

Re: Update on Sharing

#278

Post by fnordpiglet »

nly wrote: post #221
crazygringo wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

There’s a technical detail here to note though. To management the share price actually does matter because they have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder returns, and the board even more so. So while it’s true equity has no bearing on current operations, current operations does have to consider share price.

Re: Update on Sharing

#279

Post by gordian-not »

nly wrote: post #221
crazygringo wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

apart for the fact that all their employees compensation is tied to the stock price

Re: Update on Sharing

#280

Post by sowbug »

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…

Same here. We've had whatever plan allowed 4 people watching at once. Now two kids are in college. I'll hear from them immediately if they get booted from the app. And I'll do exactly what I assume Netflix wants me to do... which is downgrade to the cheapest plan and tell my kids to study more and watch less TV.
Post reply on HN