9 ms·

>Furthermore, cracking down on password sharing is reason enough to cancel - it shouldn't matter what I do with my account as long as I'm paying. this applies

>Furthermore, cracking down on password sharing is reason enough to cancel - it shouldn't matter what I do with my account as long as I'm paying. this applies to literally no service you have ever used. doesn't apply to steam. doesn't apply to microsoft office. doesn't apply to photoshop. why should it apply to netflix? using your logic we might as well just have 1 account and share it with every single person on the planet. the only reason that netflix is getting flack for it is because they were super lax with it for such a long time and now everyone feels entitled to it for some insane reason.

hericium 4y ago
> this applies to literally no service you have ever used. doesn't apply to steam. doesn't apply to microsoft office. doesn't apply to photoshop. why should it apply to netflix? Does any of those services have "multiple simultaneous streams" plans? I'm paying Netflix for 4 simultaneous streams (their naming: "Number of screens you can watch on at the same time") and they should not care where I utilize their offer.
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  Nope, you’re paying Netflix for a single household license with up to 4 simultaneous streams. You’re too fixated on this stream limit. It’s not the only limit of the contract, even if you wish that was the case.
  - ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago
    The household license is dumb and customers are reacting to such dumbness by canceling and shutting down the company.
    - skinnymuch 4y ago
      Any proof at all that customers are reacting this way? HN and Reddit being edgy doesn’t count
      - azemetre 4y ago
        I mean me personally I won’t pay as much anymore when they enforce it, I pay it for my parents that live in another state and I only watch their large tent pole shows a couple times a year. Rather than paying for the whole year I’ll pay for a month or two like I do with paramount+ and Disney+. I’m sure they did some financial calculus to see what’s better but it’s not like other companies haven’t made terrible decisions in the past killing their business. I’m sure blockbuster had bean counters justifying their choices too.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Mindwipe 4y ago
      > The household license is dumb and customers are reacting to such dumbness by canceling and shutting down the company. Customers aren't reacting because it hasn't happened yet outside of a few tiny test countries. Excluding no longer being able to do business in Russia for sanctions purposes, Netflix gained subscribers rather than losing them last quarter.
    - zwily 4y ago
      I doubt they’ll be shutting down.
  - kyriakos 4y ago
    How does that work really though? 4 streams simultaneously could all be from different locations, even different countries and still be a household subscription. One watches at work, another family member is on holidays abroad, the other watches at home and the other via mobile Internet on a train. Should this considered password sharing?
- Slartie 4y ago
  > Number of screens you can watch on at the same time You. Not your neighbor. Not your friends. Strictly by the sentence you quote to make your point, you would not even be allowed to share your "simultaneous streams" with members of your household. Which makes this quote rather useless to argue for your assumed right of sharing your streams with anyone you want.
  - hericium 4y ago
    My assumption comes from Netflix praising password sharing[1]. I think they didn't mean sharing password with myself. [1] https://nitter.net/netflix/status/840276073040371712 https://nitter.net/netflix/status/840276073040371712
  - kyriakos 4y ago
    Does that also mean all household members should be in the same house while watching? Kinda defeats the purpose of their mobile apps.
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
I honestly don’t understand why so many people are up in arms about a company enforcing their contract. If you bought a sort of “family pass” to a movie theater that allowed your family to watch unlimited movies, you wouldn’t expect to be able to pass the family pass around to other families. Netflix is literally just the digital version of a family pass to a movie theater. Everything is priced according to models of single households using single accounts, down to the licensing costs and royalties.
- Markoff 4y ago
  I don't see anyone up in arms here, he just pointed it's enough reason to cancel Netflix and he is perfectly right, same as they have right to enforce their contract. You don't like them going strict on account sharing, cancel account, it's your right.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nkjnlknlk 4y ago
  The value proposition doesn't make sense to a lot of people any more. Also, a lot of people are facing rising costs/losing jobs, etc. so it's one more thing threatening their way of life. Not to mention some families are fairly distributed and any tech savvy person has many viable alternatives.
c048 4y ago
Using your logic, anyone loaning out a book they own should be criminally charged. This line of thinking leads to the ludicrous existing patents that describe scanning the room to check how many people are in a room and once crossed a certain threshold, the movie or show automatically stops airing.
- achow 4y ago
  Isn't the difference very clear here: Subscription vs Ownership If you are paid member of a library, and the library has ToS which does not allow you to lend your book to anyone else, then yes you are at fault when you share.
- dumpsterlid 4y ago
  "Using your logic, anyone loaning out a book they own should be criminally charged." Oh you better believe that if this was possible to do with physical books, it would be done. The only reason this isn't much of a thing with ebooks is that if you use the bigger ebook services you don't really own the books in the first place.
- nathanielarmer 4y ago
  If you take a book, start photocopying it and giving away the copies you may well be. There are limits even there.
tluyben2 4y ago
I agree with you and they have a right to do this; issue is; they will lose a lot of members because of this because they were so lax. That’s why it’s is common to think; it is easier to start high and discount than start low and increase your prices. People don’t like change and will just leave. I also see how this is hard to make fair for edge cases; it should just be clear what it means. I think 1 geo location at a time for x screens is clear. One household is not clear; if my wife is travelling for her job and my son too while I stay at home: how does that work? Are they going to time the ‘remote’ watching for what a typical vacation or work outing might look like? Anyway; instead of clamping down on password sharing, why not add tiers based on number of geo locations with those screens? 4 screens in 2 locations, 4 screens in 3 locations, 4 screens in 4 locations and that’s it. These locations are not fixed, but this is easy to measure and enforce for them, while, as my situation above, is less obvious. I think making it clear what is allowed and what is not from the start in verifiable terms, is important or users will get angry as they seem to be now.
- drw85 4y ago
  > I agree with you and they have a right to do this; issue is; they will lose a lot of members because of this because they were so lax. That’s why it’s is common to think; it is easier to start high and discount than start low and increase your prices. People don’t like change and will just leave. I think they will gain a lot of members that way too, since people get used and attached to a service and now need their own accounts.
  - lovich 4y ago
    Eh, maybe a few years ago when they were still releasing critically acclaimed shows left and right and not canceling them after season 2 all while not having the streaming market be mobbed by multiple competitors who also happen to stop licensing content to Netflix at the same time. Netflix's problem was to cut quality to control costs _before_ they raised prices. If they had raised these prices while they were still the ascendant service I'm sure you are right and people would have grumbled while ultimately signing up. Then they could have cut costs slowly and most of their customers would not have noticed the boiling of the frog. As it stands they are driving their customers away at the exact moment that their competitors have finally gotten their house in order and opened their arms to Netflix's client base. Like look at just AppleTV and HBOMax. AppleTV is dumping a massive amount of money into the aesthetics. Even the screensaver on the machine is this beautiful 4k resolution photos of landscapes, all while they are obviously not skimping on writes. HBO has been in the quality tv space for longer than Netflix has produced content _and_ has paired with Adult Swim(a channel that is unique enough in content to drive people to pay for packages just to get it, much like sports in the past) to get all their content. Both of these are cheaper than what Netflix is proposing as their monthly costs. I'm not sure why Netflix thinks people will accept a more expensive, and worse product in the face of this competition
AbrahamParangi 4y ago
Customers are entitled to feel entitled.
IsTom 4y ago
Steam has family sharing.
- whynaut 4y ago
  so does Netflix?

hericium 4y ago

> this applies to literally no service you have ever used. doesn't apply to steam. doesn't apply to microsoft office. doesn't apply to photoshop. why should it apply to netflix? Does any of those services have "multiple simultaneous streams" plans? I'm paying Netflix for 4 simultaneous streams (their naming: "Number of screens you can watch on at the same time") and they should not care where I utilize their offer.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago
Nope, you’re paying Netflix for a single household license with up to 4 simultaneous streams. You’re too fixated on this stream limit. It’s not the only limit of the contract, even if you wish that was the case.
- ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago
  The household license is dumb and customers are reacting to such dumbness by canceling and shutting down the company.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    Any proof at all that customers are reacting this way? HN and Reddit being edgy doesn’t count
    - azemetre 4y ago
      I mean me personally I won’t pay as much anymore when they enforce it, I pay it for my parents that live in another state and I only watch their large tent pole shows a couple times a year. Rather than paying for the whole year I’ll pay for a month or two like I do with paramount+ and Disney+. I’m sure they did some financial calculus to see what’s better but it’s not like other companies haven’t made terrible decisions in the past killing their business. I’m sure blockbuster had bean counters justifying their choices too.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Mindwipe 4y ago
    > The household license is dumb and customers are reacting to such dumbness by canceling and shutting down the company. Customers aren't reacting because it hasn't happened yet outside of a few tiny test countries. Excluding no longer being able to do business in Russia for sanctions purposes, Netflix gained subscribers rather than losing them last quarter.
  - zwily 4y ago
    I doubt they’ll be shutting down.
- kyriakos 4y ago
  How does that work really though? 4 streams simultaneously could all be from different locations, even different countries and still be a household subscription. One watches at work, another family member is on holidays abroad, the other watches at home and the other via mobile Internet on a train. Should this considered password sharing?
Slartie 4y ago
> Number of screens you can watch on at the same time You. Not your neighbor. Not your friends. Strictly by the sentence you quote to make your point, you would not even be allowed to share your "simultaneous streams" with members of your household. Which makes this quote rather useless to argue for your assumed right of sharing your streams with anyone you want.
- hericium 4y ago
  My assumption comes from Netflix praising password sharing[1]. I think they didn't mean sharing password with myself. [1] https://nitter.net/netflix/status/840276073040371712 https://nitter.net/netflix/status/840276073040371712
- kyriakos 4y ago
  Does that also mean all household members should be in the same house while watching? Kinda defeats the purpose of their mobile apps.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

I honestly don’t understand why so many people are up in arms about a company enforcing their contract. If you bought a sort of “family pass” to a movie theater that allowed your family to watch unlimited movies, you wouldn’t expect to be able to pass the family pass around to other families. Netflix is literally just the digital version of a family pass to a movie theater. Everything is priced according to models of single households using single accounts, down to the licensing costs and royalties.

Markoff 4y ago
I don't see anyone up in arms here, he just pointed it's enough reason to cancel Netflix and he is perfectly right, same as they have right to enforce their contract. You don't like them going strict on account sharing, cancel account, it's your right.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nkjnlknlk 4y ago
The value proposition doesn't make sense to a lot of people any more. Also, a lot of people are facing rising costs/losing jobs, etc. so it's one more thing threatening their way of life. Not to mention some families are fairly distributed and any tech savvy person has many viable alternatives.

c048 4y ago

Using your logic, anyone loaning out a book they own should be criminally charged. This line of thinking leads to the ludicrous existing patents that describe scanning the room to check how many people are in a room and once crossed a certain threshold, the movie or show automatically stops airing.

achow 4y ago
Isn't the difference very clear here: Subscription vs Ownership If you are paid member of a library, and the library has ToS which does not allow you to lend your book to anyone else, then yes you are at fault when you share.
dumpsterlid 4y ago
"Using your logic, anyone loaning out a book they own should be criminally charged." Oh you better believe that if this was possible to do with physical books, it would be done. The only reason this isn't much of a thing with ebooks is that if you use the bigger ebook services you don't really own the books in the first place.
nathanielarmer 4y ago
If you take a book, start photocopying it and giving away the copies you may well be. There are limits even there.

tluyben2 4y ago

I agree with you and they have a right to do this; issue is; they will lose a lot of members because of this because they were so lax. That’s why it’s is common to think; it is easier to start high and discount than start low and increase your prices. People don’t like change and will just leave. I also see how this is hard to make fair for edge cases; it should just be clear what it means. I think 1 geo location at a time for x screens is clear. One household is not clear; if my wife is travelling for her job and my son too while I stay at home: how does that work? Are they going to time the ‘remote’ watching for what a typical vacation or work outing might look like? Anyway; instead of clamping down on password sharing, why not add tiers based on number of geo locations with those screens? 4 screens in 2 locations, 4 screens in 3 locations, 4 screens in 4 locations and that’s it. These locations are not fixed, but this is easy to measure and enforce for them, while, as my situation above, is less obvious. I think making it clear what is allowed and what is not from the start in verifiable terms, is important or users will get angry as they seem to be now.

drw85 4y ago
> I agree with you and they have a right to do this; issue is; they will lose a lot of members because of this because they were so lax. That’s why it’s is common to think; it is easier to start high and discount than start low and increase your prices. People don’t like change and will just leave. I think they will gain a lot of members that way too, since people get used and attached to a service and now need their own accounts.
- lovich 4y ago
  Eh, maybe a few years ago when they were still releasing critically acclaimed shows left and right and not canceling them after season 2 all while not having the streaming market be mobbed by multiple competitors who also happen to stop licensing content to Netflix at the same time. Netflix's problem was to cut quality to control costs _before_ they raised prices. If they had raised these prices while they were still the ascendant service I'm sure you are right and people would have grumbled while ultimately signing up. Then they could have cut costs slowly and most of their customers would not have noticed the boiling of the frog. As it stands they are driving their customers away at the exact moment that their competitors have finally gotten their house in order and opened their arms to Netflix's client base. Like look at just AppleTV and HBOMax. AppleTV is dumping a massive amount of money into the aesthetics. Even the screensaver on the machine is this beautiful 4k resolution photos of landscapes, all while they are obviously not skimping on writes. HBO has been in the quality tv space for longer than Netflix has produced content _and_ has paired with Adult Swim(a channel that is unique enough in content to drive people to pay for packages just to get it, much like sports in the past) to get all their content. Both of these are cheaper than what Netflix is proposing as their monthly costs. I'm not sure why Netflix thinks people will accept a more expensive, and worse product in the face of this competition

AbrahamParangi 4y ago

Customers are entitled to feel entitled.

IsTom 4y ago

Steam has family sharing.

whynaut 4y ago
so does Netflix?