I don't think Netflix even has the content anymore to justify the cost. I cant imagine the password sharing restriction will help them.
Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing
801–810 of 966 posts
Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing
#802Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "full automation" mean in the context of media acquisition?
The arrs are sweet. Plex serves media. Prowlarr maintains a list of torrent sites to use. Radarr for movies, sonarr for tv, and lidarr for music monitor things and auto download, move, rename, etc., and are tied into prowlarr for where to get them. Some examples, every new Minions movie or every new episode of The Witcher or every new album from IVE you can have auto download once available and get moved to the corre…
Yeah what's killing it though is the static prices of hard drives.
5 years ago I bought some 14TB drives for 229 euro. They are now still more expensive than that. This is really a bummer. Too many people move to cloud so the market for consumer HDDs is shit.
Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing
#803Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yeah, it's not a matter of angry feelings, it's just a cost-benefit analysis I'm guessing they aren't actually going to put this into action in the USA, but we'll see how it goes I'd personally be fine with paying for 5 different streaming video services, but my wife is too frugal and makes me cancel one when I start another.. presumably a lot of people are in the same boat, and would look at this as a good opportuni…
Just curious, what makes you think they won't do it here? I think they're 100% greedy enough to do it here.
And at that point, I'll cancel. I've already kind of accustomed my parents to it by reminding them that it takes them half an hour to find anything that they even want to watch on Netflix.
Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing
#804Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stranger Things is generally a much better show than Game of Thrones (in my opinion of course, but I’m pretty sure I’m objectively correct). But Game of Thrones seemed to make a much bigger cultural splash. Stranger Things—a season comes out, and then we all binge it, talk about that season, and it it all done in a month or so. Game of Thrones had weekly episode-by-episode articles written about it.
Stretching out the advertising is a huge reason why they want to delay releasing episodes. I value my time and setting my own schedule higher. I think that as long as the shows are good they'll find an audience and sustain cultural relevancy long after the ads have moved on to shoving the next thing in our faces.
Stretching out the subscription time seems like another big deal. Disney+ seems to have worked out a magnificently infuriating cadence of one interesting episode per week. There’s always just enough around the corner to not cancel the subscription…
Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing
#805Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Definitely the case for me. I am able to help out 10-20 family members across 4 countries, You're sharing an account with 20 people across 4 countries? It's honestly kind of amazing that they let this level of sharing go on for so long. It's hard for me to believe that out of 20 different people , every single one of them would decide to boycott Netflix forever because of this. If even 1 of those people decides to…
> If even 1 of those people decides to re-subscribe, Netflix has lost nothing. If 2 or more subscribe, they win. While extrapolating over a large dataset, it's important to get the initial numbers as correct as possible. Since the person you're replying to is paying for the most expensive plan (probably to get the 4x devices-at-a-time perk for so many people), the plan those people would re-subscribe at is important…
You’re assuming they have no variable costs (content fees, peak demand services) in delivering the service. One person at $12.99 a month is certainly more profitable than 10+ at < $1.799/mo.
Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing
#806Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to Netflix, there is an initial wave of cancellations, but over the ensuing months, they end up with more paying subscribers than there were before the password-sharing crackdown. They've initialized this crackdown in a few different waves. I can't imagine they would continue to do it if it were detrimental to their bottom line.
> According to Netflix, there is an initial wave of cancellations, but over the ensuing months, they end up with more paying subscribers than there were before the password-sharing crackdown. The question begging to be asked here is whether those are new subscribers or people that were using someone's else password, natural growth, or just a good show landed in meantime and a bunch of people subscribed
Yeah, we'll see how this works out for them in the long run. I have a feeling that the end result here is they'll drive away people who use them for years, and would have continued to use them for years out of loyalty, in exchange for customers who are a lot less attached to them, and will probably be more likely to cancel later on.
It's an increasingly crowded market, everyone's distracted, everyone's sick of subscriptions, and nobody has enough money. If I was going to alienate a major chunk of my userbase, this would not have been the time I would've picked.
Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing
#807Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Sadly, I think you'll find the artists have a much less rosy view of that.
"We'll cut the people creating that art's earnings down to millicent's per stream and even screw them over on that, and we'll share all the profits equitably between the rent seeking middle men" doesn't really count as "works great" for everybody...
Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing
#808Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an argument for changing the law, not violating the law.
It's an argument for both
I think I'd need to see more to consider it an argument for violating the law. I'm all for civil disobedience if the cause it just enough. Preserving media seems like a good idea, but it doesn't seem like something we need to break the law to get passed. Also, the civil disobedience line is really undercut but posters (some in this thread) who broadcast their real reasons for pirating have nothing to do with ethics, but fulfilling individual wants and needs without remorse.
Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing
#809Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I can't believe you actually had to explain this to someone on HN
Re: Netflix loses 1M users in Spain over password policing
#810Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>If NFLX said "we're going to start charging rich people more, based on zip code," there would be a revolt. Not in the poor houses, and the rich ones would pay anyway because they're rich and price inelastic. So I doubt there'd be a revolt.
I would hypothesize a revolt for two reasons. First, it would violate people's general sense of fairness that a product is being sold at different prices to different customers. Wealthy people (who are perhaps above-average in terms of retention) would leave to go to other services that they perceive to be fairer.
Second, it would be difficult to avoid overinclusive/underinclusive issues. For example, someone who lives in a studio apartment in a zip code with many large expensive homes would feel they are being clumped with people who are not like them. Is it hypothetically possible to avoid these outcomes? Sure, but it would take a ton of work, and would likely outweigh the benefit of differential pricing.