Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix Homes

help.netflix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: Netflix Homes

#71

Post by frognumber »

foogazi wrote: post #47
frognumber wrote: post #44

In 2000, everyone I knew pirated content because official platforms were broken, and piracy was more convenient and worked better. In 2010 everyone I knew paid their media tax through Netflix or a similar provider since paid services were more convenient than piracy, and things just worked. Somehow, in the past 2-5 years, piracy is quickly moving back as the more convenient option. The core problem with entertainment…

> Spending hours fighting with broken service is not fun. Do you spend hours fighting with Netflix or Prime ? How are the online media services broken for you ?

T-Mobile gave me free Paramount+. I was looking forward to it, since much of the content disappeared from Prime, some mid-series.

Paramount+ won't play on any device. It says I have to disable my ad blocker. They have code to break playback with an ad blocker, but it's broken, and disables playback even without and ad blocker. Paramount+ support says I should disable antivirus software, firewalls, and essentially, leave myself open to attacks.

Netflix selection has been getting worse too, with a proliferation of streaming services.

For the most part, I'm on Youtube. Youtube works. I can also use tools like yt-dlp to download Youtube content for plane flights, which is the major place I'd like to watch content. Most streaming services don't support use without internet access.

Oh -- and if I buy something, I'm liable to lose it. Google almost killed my whole library of purchases with the whole GSuite free thing, before backpedaling at the very last minute. For a few months, I had unnecessary stress and headache.

Piracy has all the content I want, works off-line, on any device, and in any player. Pirated content doesn't expire or break. If I weren't a high-profile figure liable to look bad in media, I'd go with piracy. It seems like the better option. It's certainly what I advocate to friends and family.

Re: Netflix Homes

#72

Post by Comevius »

qeternity wrote: post #66
the_biot wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always hate to see it as well, when companies degrade their product for the tiniest bit of extra profit. It's the classic one-less-olive-in-airline-meal story. Remember when a Big Mac was actually a big burger? It's a very small burger, these days. Netflix is somewhat ahead of this slippery slope here, in that when they started producing their own content it was third-rate from the start, very much quantity of qual…

> Remember when a Big Mac was actually a big burger? It's a very small burger, these days. And yet in spite of this, McDonald's Corp has never been more valuable. See my point?

You can get away with it when everyone is doing it. Most of the food and beverage industry compromises quality or quantity in one way or another. McDonald's is actually one of the better ones, they compromise the quantity, but otherwise they are consistent, innovative and good at observing customer trends and behaviors.

Re: Netflix Homes

#73

Post by Comevius »

qeternity wrote: post #67
Comevius wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compromising your products and services for profit is a slippery slope under normal circumstances, but streaming is a rather competitive market. What Netflix is doing is baffling, they are in the middle of a race for dominance. I think Netflix was too late to realize that they need to become an entertainment company like Disney or HBO and not a tech company, because that's Amazon and the world is too small for anothe…

> What Netflix is doing is baffling I wouldn't agree with this, and apparently neither would they. But none of this answers my question.

Trading customer goodwill for chump change is rarely the winning strategy, but it's sure a losing strategy in the middle of the streaming wars when other companies are trying their best to cater to their customers.

Re: Netflix Homes

#74

Post by freedom2099 »

czstar wrote: post #69
freedom2099 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not really exactly the same thing! A web services should not be location bound! What if next to access your email you have to be home or pay for any extra location? Following your previous line of reasoning to access standard mail you have to be home!

It wasn’t a line of reasoning or a justification. I was not justifying anything or arguing for or against anything. Web services are already location bound. For example, there are YouTube videos available in the U.S. but not in Russia. I’m certain there are emails legal to be sent and read in Iran that are not legal to be sent in the U.S. One state in the U.S. is attempting to ban abortion information being sent to p…

The reason for restricovodeos is licensing on the content in every country… within the same country no restrictions apply. I do understand Netflix point of wanting to restrict account sharing… but I don’t see why this should impact people that simply move around a lot! Another example: I have a friend that is a consultant… basically every week is in a different place! No Netflix at all for him?

Re: Netflix Homes

#75

Post by freedom2099 »

romanovcode wrote: post #9
throwawayacc2 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate please?

As I said in my own comment: Their goal is to remove non-paying customers from their platform.

I never shared my account with anyone… I am the sole users and yet this policy would cost me money and issues! I travel way more than 2 weeks a year (in civilised countries like France I have 8 weeks of vacation a year)… plus I often visit my vacation home… don’t see why they should charge me for that (while I am on my vacation home there is nobody using Netflix at my place… there is always only one stream at a time)! So if they do put it in place where I live that can say goodbye to a very loyal customers (I subscribed 9 years ago)

Re: Netflix Homes

#76

Post by chucksta »

qeternity wrote: post #66
the_biot wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always hate to see it as well, when companies degrade their product for the tiniest bit of extra profit. It's the classic one-less-olive-in-airline-meal story. Remember when a Big Mac was actually a big burger? It's a very small burger, these days. Netflix is somewhat ahead of this slippery slope here, in that when they started producing their own content it was third-rate from the start, very much quantity of qual…

> Remember when a Big Mac was actually a big burger? It's a very small burger, these days. And yet in spite of this, McDonald's Corp has never been more valuable. See my point?

And it has also never been more synonymous with garbage food which makes you feel bad. Just because its profitable and "good for the company" doesn't mean it's good for product image and users.

Re: Netflix Homes

#77

Post by skyzyx »

freedom2099 wrote: post #57
foogazi wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about going to my vacation home during weekends? Maybe they think you can afford it

It’s not that I can’t afford it… it’s a matter of principle! There is no valid reason for an INTERNET SERVICE to be bound to a geographical location (aside of squeezing people out of every penny possible)!

If you mean geographical location within the same country, sure.

If you mean across multiple countries, it gets dramatically more complex. Copyright holders sell streaming rights based on countries and all kinds of other continent negotiation details.

Re: Netflix Homes

#78

Post by skyzyx »

My wife and I live in the US. My kids spend the school year with their mom in Canada, and spend summers, vacations, and many weekends here in the US. We’re only about 100 miles away from each other, but it crosses an international border. For more than a decade, my kids have been on my account. All of their history and recommendations are attached to their profile in my account. If they want to move their profiles over to their mother’s account for the nine months of the year that they are in Canada, they can’t. They just use their existing profiles in my account at both homes.

In my case, nobody is “stealing” anything. My immediate family has had to deal with these international issues for about eight years, where the kids spend about three months in the US and nine months in Canada every year, crossing the border every 3-4 weeks.

I have no idea how Netflix’s changes are going to affect my family.

Taking another example: Disney+ and Hulu. Hulu is majority (but not entirely) owned by Disney (post-20th Century Fox acquisition). In the US, we have Disney+ and Hulu as separate services. In Canada there is no Hulu, but Disney+ offers something called “Star” which is more-or-less non-US Hulu. In other words, Disney is already getting 2 subscriptions out of me in the US for content that only requires one subscription in other countries.

But I don’t mind. Why? Because Disney has high quality content. Even if I don’t want to watch it, none of it is necessarily “bad”. Netflix, OTOH, churns out so much garbage. And most of their original shows get canceled far too early. I now avoid most new Netflix shows until it has a few seasons under its belt, because I’m tired of getting invested into shows that are canceled after a cliff-hanger.

Ted Sarandos: I’m looking at you.

Re: Netflix Homes

#79

Post by wdb »

hotpotamus wrote: post #61
wdb wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively, so if you visit your parents every weekend, you can also afford another Netflix account for when you are visiting your parents?

I already use my parents' account, so it wouldn't apply to me so much. I wouldn't buy a Netflix account just for the weekends though; I suppose everyone will have to figure out how to spend their entertainment dollars to suit themselves in the brave new reality.

Yes, same here, that's probably when I would cancel Netflix

Re: Netflix Homes

#80

Post by JohnHaugeland »

qeternity wrote: post #64
JohnHaugeland wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who doesn't sympathize with unionizing workers? Anyway, what they meant was "chasing short term profit bumps unwisely at the expense of long term satisfaction due to temporary economic stress"

People always say this, but there are plenty of companies that have been "chasing short term profits" for decades and are now worth hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars. Plenty of armchair CEOs on this site who simply don't appreciate the market position and power of the companies they judge. I'm not saying this won't be bad for Netflix long run, I'm saying I simply don't know. But I would bet that Netflix ma…

I see that you are trying to argue with someone else through me, when I had to explain what they said to you
Post reply on HN