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

Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

791–800 of 966 posts

Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing

#791

Post by zaphirplane »

mathgeek wrote: post #699
oefnak wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> money for two houses > no money for separate accounts for family members

Your comment adds nothing useful to the discussion, as GP never said it was a matter of cost. I am in the same boat and it’s about convenience and/or the loss of what we currently have. Netflix both raised prices and reduced what you get.

I disagree, if cracking down on friends and different households sharing passwords means I get it cheaper than I’m ok with that.

Their implementation allows people to use their tablet / phone / setup box/ streaming device in multiple locations. Since the technology isn’t available to cater for people living and paying for multiple house holds the options are everyone pays extra or the very very few people that can afford it or an anomaly pay extra

To be frank for the case of someone living 6 months here 6 months there They can sign-up and cancel cause it’s a month by month subscription

Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing

#792

Post by [deleted] »

moffkalast wrote: post #133
MadSudaca wrote: post #42

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…

That sounds complicated, but with today's sponsor - piracy - you can get any content from any subscription service with just a few clicks for the low price of zero dollars. Sharing is caring :)

[deleted]

Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing

#793

Post by [deleted] »

rvschuilenburg wrote: post #185
ryan-allen wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's often of poor quality and not in 4k. I rented a movie from YouTube the other day and the stream supported HDR, and if I had a 5.1 surround that would have worked, too! If you're not watching 4 hours of TV per day it's not that expensive to rent content, but I'm saying this from the point of a westerner. For other parts of the world a $5 USD for a movie for 48 hours doesn't make any sense over straight up piracy.

> It's often of poor quality and not in 4k. This really depends on how good of a pirate you are. If you put in some effort, you'll be watching 4k blu-ray movies in a higher bitrate than streaming services offer.

[deleted]

Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing

#794

Post by nomel »

MadSudaca wrote: post #640
mitchdoogle wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Netflix says, they end up with more subscribers at the end of the day. I'm sure all these services will follow suit once they reach some point of growth, or rather a halt to growth. It's kind of crazy they've let it go on this long. It's weird people actually have the gall to complain about this move like they feel they deserve to get things for free. Either you pay for the service and password-sharing doesn't aff…

How do you know they’ll end with more subscribers?

This is across four countries. They've already seen growth in Canada [1].

The math makes sense to me. If the average "sharer" shares with three people, they could lose 66% of the active users in the "sharing" population, before losing a single paying customer. Who knows what the average actually is [2].

[1] https://mobilesyrup.com/2023/04/18/netflix-password-sharing-...

[2] sharing with everyone at work? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35719281

Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing

#795

Post by sundvor »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #702
oefnak wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> money for two houses > no money for separate accounts for family members

A Netflix account is supposed to be one per family, it was never supposed to be tied to an individual person. Who in their right mind would assume that a package that allowed four simultaneous streams would be for a single person watching four shows at once? No, it’s clearly supposed to be that one account covers multiple people. GP is fine to complain whether they have enough money for two houses at once. What about…

The latter is me. I'll be watching this closely, for my son.

Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing

#796

Post by miked85 »

astura wrote: post #747
parsimo2010 wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Netflix account is supposed to be one per family, it was never supposed to be tied to an individual person. Who in their right mind would assume that a package that allowed four simultaneous streams would be for a single person watching four shows at once? No, it’s clearly supposed to be that one account covers multiple people. GP is fine to complain whether they have enough money for two houses at once. What about…

>A Netflix account is supposed to be one per family, it was never supposed to be tied to an individual person. Who in their right mind would assume that a package that allowed four simultaneous streams would be for a single person watching four shows at once? Like cable, internet connection, or Costco membership - it's per household not per family.

It always used to be that you paid for the number of streams, and Netflix encouraged it https://twitter.com/netflix/status/840276073040371712

Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing

#797

Post by zaphirplane »

gnicholas wrote: post #697
oefnak wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> money for two houses > no money for separate accounts for family members

That's not what GP said. GP complained about having to pay as if there were multiple households benefiting, when it's actually just one household, albeit a wealthy one. If NFLX said "we're going to start charging rich people more, based on zip code," there would be a revolt. I would assume it's not their intention to try to "go after" this segment and make them pay more (since it's a small portion of their users, and…

You think The people will demand to pay more to subsidize the rich. I love your optimism and altruism

Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing

#798

Post by wkat4242 »

I'm in Spain and I heard of others that are cancelling. I'm sharing a family member's account from the Netherlands and it's still letting me share :P But once the ban hits the Netherlands too I'll just switch to piracy again.

Netflix was good while it lasted but it's over now. Even after this they will want to keep increasing revenue so they will keep adding more barriers. It's the typical platform enshittification, once they reach market saturation there is only the way downhill for the customer.

The others are subsidising their offers now to gain marketshare but once they gain a foothold they will do the same.

Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing

#799

Post by wkat4242 »

ilyt wrote: post #711
ho_schi wrote: post #569

Netflix: ”You get two parallel streams with your family. Family means trust and password sharing.“ Customers: “Farewell pirating. We pay a fair flat and it is automatically shared between Netflix and artists. Great!“ Netflix: “We increase the flat permanently. And we have now competitors and doesn’t over anymore all relevant content (e.g. Star Trek Picard, Expanse, Disney). How about ruining it and blocking family me…

> I wouldn’t be surprised if artists (filmmakers, musicians…) create a common fair streaming platform. Let us name it “United Artists“ ;) That falls under > And we have now competitors and doesn’t over anymore all relevant content The core problem is basically owners of IP all wanting to build walled gardens to distribute them (and get all of the cut), instead of just going "pay us X per view, regardless of who you a…

> instead of just going "pay us X per view, regardless of who you are"

Yeah and this is actually how the music industry is doing this and it works great. Spotify, Apple Music, Deezer etc all work fine alongside one another.

Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing

#800

Post by taeric »

gnicholas wrote: post #774
taeric wrote: post #771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious how you read that and don't see the words "roof" and "same dwelling"? Because... that seems far more focused on where they are located than not? Only thing it is excluding is multiple family units all living in a shared building are not one household.

Oh, I absolutely see that limitation. But as I mentioned in my example, a "household" does not cease to exist when it leaves that shared roof. The group is defined based on where they live, regardless of whether they are together at any given moment, or if they are under a different roof together (and whether that different roof is part of a hotel, condo, or vacation home).

It totally ceases when you leave the shared roof. Is why me and my siblings shared a household with our parents, but don't share one now that we have moved out.
Post reply on HN