551–560 of 966 posts
The fact you're sometimes being forced to watch something you didn't really want to watch, and forced to negotiate with your friend/neighbour over when exactly toilet breaks are going to happen, would lead to lots of users deciding it isn't worth the hassle and they'll subscribe themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This, absolutely this, for my wife and I. Movies and shows that we love, we also download because it's often been inevitable that they get dropped from a streaming service at some point. Or, they're moved over to a new service (see: Peacock/Office) and we don't think that paying an additional monthly fee just to access that one show that we only occasionally watch is worth it. Similarly, if the streaming service cont…
> Similarly, if the streaming service continues to play ads despite paying for the service, we will just pirate the content. Why though? Why don't you just watch some other content? There's so much out there, and you have so many choices, available without any ads, and also if you choose you can consume free content as well. Given that you have these alternatives, why do you feel you have the right to nonetheless vio…
Because that content isn't this content, and I want to see this content.
>Given that you have these alternatives, why do you feel you have the right to nonetheless violate IP laws because you don't like that a subset of content carries ads or restrictions?
First, see above - that content isn't this content, so if there's not a suitable alternative, well, c'est la vie. I've demonstrated that I'm willing to pay for these things, albeit to a point. If the service goes beyond that point, and I still want the content, then I'll obtain it via other means. Besides, much of the specific content I'm referring to in this scenario rakes in massive profits every quarter and is doing quite well for itself regardless of whether or not I "violate IP laws" to obtain it. That's setting aside the fact that it's been shown that piracy doesn't harm sales[1]. Further, in spite of our pirating, we'll still often inject money back towards the IP via other means.
[1]https://gizmodo.com/the-eu-suppressed-a-300-page-study-that-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, that is exactly my point. I’m not saying HBO or Apple TV+ (what a name..) couldn’t do it, just that they seem much less poised to. Funny how saying Bandersnatch was innovative gets HN absolutely livid.
>Funny how saying Bandersnatch was innovative gets HN absolutely livid. ... huh? I didn't say Bandersnatch wasn't innovative and my feathers are far from ruffled. I just don't see how citing one thing from five years ago that no other streamer, nor Netflix themselves, have replicated since (correct me if I'm wrong) is a strong is example of Netflix being "innovative". I'd argue that other streaming providers would've…
My original comment was at -3 when I said that.
Losing 1M users is not good, but isn't the real question how many accounts they lost? > The move was linked to a fall in users of more than a million, two thirds of whom were using someone else’s password, according to Kantar’s research, which is based on surveys of household streaming habits. This makes it seem like they lost 333k customers. I don't know how many customers they have in Spain, but that sounds like a…
How many people got HBO because their friends (paying or not) were talking about Game of Thrones?
Hopefully for Netflix somebody there has run the numbers WRT one incremental unit of video-delivery-cost is worth more or less than one incremental unit of chatter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I too have noticed the big gap is writers I started watching "The Night Agent" but the dialogue became too painful for me to carry on after about four or five episodes. That coupled with a script where two secret service agents bitch at each other like children eventually nailed the coffin.
Exactly! I had the same reaction. First episode, "Okay, an interesting (if well worn) setup, a lead character that is somewhat interesting, some dynamics." to second episode "Well that really didn't feel particularly entertaining", to the third episode, "not getting better, time to get off this train."
What's the problem here?
I pay for 4 screens not because i use it but because i set it up for my parents and wifes parents who just don’t understand how that all works. Additionally i have a house in two countries and if they make that a pain in the butt for me I’m done as well. I’m paying for convenience I already know how to pirate all of this for free if they want to push me back that way.
Netflix knew this was happening and it’s why they introduced number of active screens. Now they aren’t happy with revenue and need to move the goal posts and paint people using the platform as intended previously as lazy or freeloaders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A friend of mine just does one service at a time, and it's low-key fairly brilliant. There's a bit of headache with installing / uninstalling apps on televisions and having to log into things once a month or quarter or however long it takes him, but the kernel of the idea is that there are generally only a few new, good shows worth watching for any given network, but all the good shows are roughly equally distributed…
This is why all the streaming services are constantly trying to hype up their one "must watch" show. If you aren't watching it now , you're left out of the conversation, and nobody will want to talk about it in three months.
I practically never see an ad for a particular new show -- tho in addition to memory faults there is also of course selection bias here.
It's funny. Right now I have access to around 5 streaming services while I only pay for 2. My girlfriend's friend has access to Netflix, my sis HBO. I provide access to Disney+ and Prime to my family. I used to get YT premium from my sis's boyfriend, but they detected I'm not in the family household and they kicked me out. If it wasn't because other people use my accounts (and I use theirs), I wouldn't be paying for…
It's interesting to see that free market competition actually worsened the customer offering when it comes to streaming services. Back in the days, Netflix was a one-to-see-all service and that was also one of the reasons why it took people from torrenting to paying for movies. Nowadays, if you want to watch a particular movie, you have maybe a 10% chance that it is available on the streaming service that you are cur…
Ah yes, free market competition funded by insane amounts of quantitative easing pumping equity into NFLX which took that money and lowballed customers to pick them up early. And of course, this is all somehow "worse" than the universe before Netflix existed, when you'd have to physically go rent movies and return them.
Netflix really messed this up. They shouldn't have tried to tackle password sharing. Instead they should have enforced concurrent streams and let people pay for more concurrent streams. Psychologically it's very different and people paying for the premium plan of 4 streams would probably not be affected.
Unfortunately, the lasting affect will be a net positive, because sometimes you have to just be the adult and say loosing money isn't an option. I would like to call this shedding the college weight, and firing 80% of the work force, because the business will die otherwise in the case of Twitter.
Would you rather run a business with much higher ROI with a small user base and run a lean business, or a fat business with super scale data but bleeding out money? I'm not sure I get the argument against this.