5 ms·

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

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
Mindwipe 4y ago
> 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? Does nobody here pay tax? Household has a pretty clear meaning, people ordinarily resident overnight in the same household. Spotify has the same restriction, and uses ML to enforce it to some extent, and nobody using the service legitimately has any issues.

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

Mindwipe 4y ago

> 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? Does nobody here pay tax? Household has a pretty clear meaning, people ordinarily resident overnight in the same household. Spotify has the same restriction, and uses ML to enforce it to some extent, and nobody using the service legitimately has any issues.